Semi-Quantitative Determination of Dopaminergic Neuron Density in the Substantia Nigra of Rodent Models using Automated Image Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Estimation of the number of dopaminergic neurons in the substantia nigra is a key method in pre-clinical Parkinson's disease research. Currently, unbiased stereological counting is the standard for quantification of these cells, but it remains a laborious and time-consuming process, which may not be feasible for all projects. Here, we describe the use of an image analysis platform, which can accurately estimate the quantity of labeled cells in a pre-defined region of interest. We describe a step-by-step protocol for this method of analysis in rat brain and demonstrate it can identify a significant reduction in tyrosine hydroxylase positive neurons due to expression of mutant α-synuclein in the substantia nigra. We validated this methodology by comparing with results obtained by unbiased stereology. Taken together, this method provides a time-efficient and accurate process for detecting changes in dopaminergic neuron number, and thus is suitable for efficient determination of the effect of interventions on cell survival.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".