ArticleThe Journal of comparative neurology2021
Astrocyte regional heterogeneity revealed through machine learning-based glial neuroanatomical assays.
Article in The Journal of comparative neurology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Supervised and unsupervised learning reveal heroin-induced impairments in astrocyte structural plasticity.Science advances · 2025Article
- Advances in quantitative analysis of astrocytes using machine learning.Neural regeneration research · 2023Article
- Microglia are implicated in the development of paclitaxel chemotherapy-associated cognitive impairment in female mice.Brain, behavior, and immunity · 2023Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Evaluation of reactive astrogliosis by neuroanatomical assays represents a common experimental outcome for neuroanatomists. The literature demonstrates several conflicting results as to the accuracy of such measures. We posited that the diverging results within the neuroanatomy literature were due to suboptimal analytical workflows in addition to astrocyte regional heterogeneity. We therefore generated an automated segmentation workflow to extract features of glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) and aldehyde dehydrogenase family 1, member L1 (ALDH1L1) labeled astrocytes with and without neuroinflammation. We achieved this by capturing multiplexed immunofluorescent confocal images of mouse brains treated with either vehicle or lipopolysaccharide (LPS) followed by implementation of our workflows. Using classical image analysis techniques focused on pixel intensity only, we were unable to identify differences between vehicle-treated and LPS-treated animals. However, when utilizing machine learning-based algorithms, we were able to (1) accurately predict which objects were derived from GFAP or ALDH1L1-stained images indicating that GFAP and ALDH1L1 highlight distinct morphological aspects of astrocytes, (2) we could predict which neuroanatomical region the segmented GFAP or ALDH1L1 object had been derived from, indicating that morphological features of astrocytes change as a function of neuroanatomical location. (3) We discovered a statistically significant, albeit not highly accurate, prediction of which objects had come from LPS versus vehicle-treated animals, indicating that although features exist capable of distinguishing LPS-treated versus vehicle-treated GFAP and ALDH1L1-segmented objects, that significant overlap between morphologies exists. We further determined that for most classification scenarios, nonlinear models were required for improved treatment class designations. We propose that unbiased automated image analysis techniques coupled with well-validated machine learning tools represent highly useful models capable of providing insights into neuroanatomical assays.
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.