ArticleJournal of biomolecular techniques : JBT2016
A Practical Approach to Quantitative Processing and Analysis of Small Biological Structures by Fluorescent Imaging.
Article in Journal of biomolecular techniques : JBT, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- A smartphone-based optical detection for rapid and reliable quantification of bacterial contamination on stainless-steel surfaces.Applied and environmental microbiology · 2026Article
- Local mean suppression filter for effective background identification in fluorescence images.Computers in biology and medicine · 2025Article
- Usability of deep learning pipelines for 3D nuclei identification with Stardist and Cellpose.Cells & development · 2022Article
- Article
- High-Throughput Methods in the Discovery and Study of Biomaterials and Materiobiology.Chemical reviews · 2021Review
- Article
- DEFiNE: A Method for Enhancement and Quantification of Fluorescently Labeled Axons.Frontiers in neuroanatomy · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Standards in quantitative fluorescent imaging are vaguely recognized and receive insufficient discussion. A common best practice is to acquire images at Nyquist rate, where highest signal frequency is assumed to be the highest obtainable resolution of the imaging system. However, this particular standard is set to insure that all obtainable information is being collected. The objective of the current study was to demonstrate that for quantification purposes, these correctly set acquisition rates can be redundant; instead, linear size of the objects of interest can be used to calculate sufficient information density in the image. We describe optimized image acquisition parameters and unbiased methods for processing and quantification of medium-size cellular structures. Sections of rabbit aortas were immunohistochemically stained to identify and quantify sympathetic varicosities, >2 μm in diameter. Images were processed to reduce background noise and segment objects using free, open-access software. Calculations of the optimal sampling rate for the experiment were based on the size of the objects of interest. The effect of differing sampling rates and processing techniques on object quantification was demonstrated. Oversampling led to a substantial increase in file size, whereas undersampling hindered reliable quantification. Quantification of raw and incorrectly processed images generated false structures, misrepresenting the underlying data. The current study emphasizes the importance of defining image-acquisition parameters based on the structure(s) of interest. The proposed postacquisition processing steps effectively removed background and noise, allowed for reliable quantification, and eliminated user bias. This customizable, reliable method for background subtraction and structure quantification provides a reproducible tool for researchers across biologic disciplines.
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.