ArticleJournal of biomechanics2020
Correction of bias in the estimation of cell volume fraction from histology sections.
Article in Journal of biomechanics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cancer characterization using light backscattering spectroscopy and quantitative ultrasound: an ex vivo study on sarcoma subtypes.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Enhancing Interrogation of Skeletal Muscle Samples for Informative Quantitative Data.Journal of neuromuscular diseases · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Accurate determination of the fraction of a tissue's volume occupied by cells is critical for studying tissue development, pathology, and biomechanics. For example, homogenization methods that predict the function and responses of tissues based upon the properties of the tissue's constituents require estimates of cell volume fractions. A common way to estimate cellular volume fraction is to image cells in thin, planar histologic sections, and then invoke either the Delesse or the Glagolev principle to estimate the volume fraction from the measured area fraction. The Delesse principle relies upon the observation that for randomly aligned, identical features, the expected value of the observed area fraction of a phase equals the volume fraction of that phase, and the Glagolev principle relies on a similar observation for random rather than planar sampling. These methods are rigorous for analysis of a polished, opaque rock sections and for histologic sections that are thin compared to the characteristic length scale of the cells. However, when histologic slices cannot be cut sufficiently thin, a bias will be introduced. Although this bias - known as the Holmes effect in petrography - has been resolved for opaque spheres in a transparent matrix, it has not been addressed for histologic sections presenting the opposite problem, namely transparent cells in an opaque matrix. In this note, we present a scheme for correcting the bias in volume fraction estimates for transparent components in a relatively opaque matrix.
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.