Barrio: Customizable Spatial Neighborhood Analysis and Comparison for Nanoscale Brain Structures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract High‐resolution electron microscopy imaging allows neuroscientists to reconstruct not just entire cells but individual cell substructures (i.e., cell organelles) as well. Based on these data, scientists hope to get a better understanding of brain function and development through detailed analysis of local organelle neighborhoods. In‐depth analyses require efficient and scalable comparison of a varying number of cell organelles, ranging from two to hundreds of local spatial neighborhoods. Scientists need to be able to analyze the 3D morphologies of organelles, their spatial distributions and distances, and their spatial correlations. We have designed Barrio as a configurable framework that scientists can adjust to their preferred workflow, visualizations, and supported user interactions for their specific tasks and domain questions. Furthermore, Barrio provides a scalable comparative visualization approach for spatial neighborhoods that automatically adjusts visualizations based on the number of structures to be compared. Barrio supports small multiples of spatial 3D views as well as abstract quantitative views, and arranges them in linked and juxtaposed views. To adapt to new domain‐specific analysis scenarios, we allow the definition of individualized visualizations and their parameters for each analysis session. We present an in‐depth case study for mitochondria analysis in neuronal tissue and demonstrate the usefulness of Barrio in a qualitative user study with neuroscientists.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 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".