Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30894402›Full record

ReviewThe Journal of cell biology2019

Designing a rigorous microscopy experiment: Validating methods and avoiding bias.

Anna Payne-Tobin Jost, Jennifer C Waters

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The Journal of cell biology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

46 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. SLC11A2 affects nutritional immunity in the gut epithelium.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Super-Resolution Imaging of Peroxisomal Proteins Using STED Nanoscopy.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2023
    Article
  19. PACInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2022
    Article
  20. 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.

Anna Payne-Tobin JostDepartment of Cell Biology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.ORCID 0000-0002-0202-1433
Jennifer C WatersDepartment of Cell Biology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.ORCID 0000-0002-3811-3364

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Images generated by a microscope are never a perfect representation of the biological specimen. Microscopes and specimen preparation methods are prone to error and can impart images with unintended attributes that might be misconstrued as belonging to the biological specimen. In addition, our brains are wired to quickly interpret what we see, and with an unconscious bias toward that which makes the most sense to us based on our current understanding. Unaddressed errors in microscopy images combined with the bias we bring to visual interpretation of images can lead to false conclusions and irreproducible imaging data. Here we review important aspects of designing a rigorous light microscopy experiment: validation of methods used to prepare samples and of imaging system performance, identification and correction of errors, and strategies for avoiding bias in the acquisition and analysis of images.

Indexed as

AnimalsHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMicroscopyResearch DesignSoftwareTechnology Assessment, BiomedicalValidation Studies as Topic

Identifiers

PMID30894402
PMCPMC6504886

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.