Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21607834›Full record

ArticleThe European physical journal. E, Soft matter2011

Epithelial tissue statistics: eliminating bias reveals morphological and morphogenetic features.

M P Miklius, S Hilgenfeldt

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The European physical journal. E, Soft matter, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

M P MikliusEngineering Sciences and Applied Mathematics, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA. mattmiklius@gmail.com
S Hilgenfeldt

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Geometric order in quasi-two-dimensional epithelia has been extensively researched in order to identify and classify different tissues to help our understanding of how tissues form (morphogenesis) and how their formation may be influenced (tissue regeneration). However, the significance of published data -such as the distribution of numbers of cell neighbors- has been debatable because of measurement bias. We shown that such bias can be detected and corrected without detailed knowledge of the original samples, using only the biased (measured) distributions. This is true for both of the most important sources of bias: the measurement of apparent four-fold vertices and the selective preference for measuring smaller cells introduced by selecting a finite sampling window. The resulting unbiased data allows for a meaningful comparison of all available data, from different sources, taken with different experimental resolution and methodology. Conclusive evidence is found that the apparent four-fold vertices are neither distributed randomly nor oriented randomly, revealing profound differences in topological correlation between proliferating and remodeling tissues. The method is applied to measurements of Drosophila wing tissue, where it successfully disentangles distributional moments, allowing for an assessment of their relative importance, independence, and significance in tissue identification and classification.

Indexed as

AnimalsBiometryDrosophilaEpithelial CellsEpitheliumMorphogenesisWings, Animal

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.