A Systematic, Open-Science Framework for Quantification of Cell-Types in Mouse Brain Sections Using Fluorescence Microscopy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ever-expanding availability and evolution of microscopy tools has enabled ground-breaking discoveries in neurobiology, particularly with respect to the analysis of cell-type density and distribution. Widespread implementation of many of the elegant image processing tools available continues to be impeded by the lack of complete workflows that span from experimental design, labeling techniques, and analysis workflows, to statistical methods and data presentation. Additionally, it is important to consider open science principles (e.g., open-source software and tools, user-friendliness, simplicity, and accessibility). In the present methodological article, we provide a compendium of resources and a FIJI-ImageJ-based workflow aimed at improving the quantification of cell density in mouse brain samples using semi-automated open-science-based methods. Our proposed framework spans from principles and best practices of experimental design, histological and immunofluorescence staining, and microscopy imaging to recommendations for statistical analysis and data presentation. To validate our approach, we quantified neuronal density in the mouse barrel cortex using antibodies against pan-neuronal and interneuron markers. This framework is intended to be simple and yet flexible, such that it can be adapted to suit distinct project needs. The guidelines, tips, and proposed methodology outlined here, will support researchers of wide-ranging experience levels and areas of focus in neuroscience research.
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 | 0.062 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.008 |
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".