Development of a computer-based quantification method for immunohistochemically-stained tissues and its application to study mast cells in equine wound healing (proof of concept)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is a growing interest in the scientific community to use computer-based software programs for the quantification of cells during physiological and pathophysiological processes. Drawbacks of computer-based methods currently used to quantify immunohistochemical staining are the complexity of use, expense of software and overly-simplified descriptions of protocol thereby limiting reproducibility. The precise role of mast cells in equine cutaneous wound healing is unknown. Given the contribution of mast cells to the chronic inflammation observed in human keloid, a pathology similar to exuberant granulation tissue (EGT) in horses, mast cells might be present in high numbers in equine limb wounds predisposed to EGT. The main goal of this study was to develop a reliable and reproducible quantification method for immunostained tissues using a computer software that is widely available, at no cost, to the scientific community. A secondary goal was to conduct a proof of concept using the newly-established method to quantify mast cells during wound healing at different anatomical sites (body and limb) in horses to see if a different pattern is observed in limb wounds, which are predisposed to EGT. RESULTS: A good intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC, 0.67 p < 0.05) was found between the computer-based ImageJ method and manual counting. An excellent intra-operator ICC of 0.90 (p < 0.01) was found for the ImageJ quantification method while a good interoperator ICC of 0.69 (p < 0.01) was measured. No significant difference was observed between the variation of the ImageJ and that of the manual counting method. Mast cells were localized below the epidermis, around cutaneous appendages and blood vessels. Mast cell numbers did not differ significantly in relation to anatomical location or time of healing. CONCLUSIONS: The computer-based quantification method developed is reliable, reproducible, available, cost-free and could be used to study different physiological and pathological processes using immunohistochemistry.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".