ArticleBiotechnology and bioengineering2011
Biofilm image reconstruction for assessing structural parameters.
Article in Biotechnology and bioengineering, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of FeMicroorganisms · 2022Article
- Advances and opportunities in image analysis of bacterial cells and communities.FEMS microbiology reviews · 2021Article
- Experimental Designs to Study the Aggregation and Colonization of Biofilms by Video Microscopy With Statistical Confidence.Frontiers in microbiology · 2021Article
- A Sensitive Thresholding Method for Confocal Laser Scanning Microscope Image Stacks of Microbial Biofilms.Scientific reports · 2018Article
- Article
- Advancing microbial sciences by individual-based modelling.Nature reviews. Microbiology · 2016Review
- Quantifying element incorporation in multispecies biofilms using nanoscale secondary ion mass spectrometry image analysis.Biointerphases · 2016Article
- A Generalized Spatial Measure for Resilience of Microbial Systems.Frontiers in microbiology · 2016Article
- Electrochemically active biofilms: facts and fiction. A review.Biofouling · 2012Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The structure of biofilms can be numerically quantified from microscopy images using structural parameters. These parameters are used in biofilm image analysis to compare biofilms, to monitor temporal variation in biofilm structure, to quantify the effects of antibiotics on biofilm structure and to determine the effects of environmental conditions on biofilm structure. It is often hypothesized that biofilms with similar structural parameter values will have similar structures; however, this hypothesis has never been tested. The main goal was to test the hypothesis that the commonly used structural parameters can characterize the differences or similarities between biofilm structures. To achieve this goal (1) biofilm image reconstruction was developed as a new tool for assessing structural parameters, (2) independent reconstructions using the same starting structural parameters were tested to see how they differed from each other, (3) the effect of the original image parameter values on reconstruction success was evaluated, and (4) the effect of the number and type of the parameters on reconstruction success was evaluated. It was found that two biofilms characterized by identical commonly used structural parameter values may look different, that the number and size of clusters in the original biofilm image affect image reconstruction success and that, in general, a small set of arbitrarily selected parameters may not reveal relevant differences between biofilm structures.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.