Effect of cells on spatial quantification of proteoglycans in articular cartilage of small animals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective Histochemical characterization of proteoglycan content in articular cartilage is important for the understanding of osteoarthritis pathogenesis. However, cartilage cells may interfere with the measurement of matrix proteoglycan content in small animal models (e.g. mice and rats) due to the high cell volume fraction (38%) in mice compared to human tissue (~1%). We investigated whether excluding the cells from image analysis affects the histochemically measured proteoglycan content of rat knee joint cartilage and assessed the effectiveness of a deep learning algorithm-based tool named U-Net in cell segmentation.Design Histological sections were stained with Safranin-O, after which optical densities were measured using digital densitometry to estimate proteoglycan content. U-Net was trained with 600 annotated Safranin-O cartilage images for exclusion of cells from the cartilage extracellular matrix. Optical densities of the ECM with and without cells were compared as a function of normalized tissue depth.Results U-Net cell segmentation was accurate, with the measured cell area fraction following largely that of ground-truth images (average difference: 4.3%). Cell area fraction varied as a function of tissue depth and took up 8–21% of the tissue area. The exclusion of cells from the analysis led to an increase in the analyzed depth-dependent optical density of cartilage by approximately 0.6–1.8% (p < 0.01).Conclusions Although the effect of cells on the analyzed proteoglycan content is small, it should be considered for improved sensitivity, especially at the onset of the disease during which cells may proliferate in small animals.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".