Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34216639›Full record

ReviewProgress in biophysics and molecular biology2022

Mesoscale microscopy and image analysis tools for understanding the brain.

Adam L Tyson, Troy W Margrie

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Progress in biophysics and molecular biology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing 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

26 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. The mouse brain after foot shock in four dimensions: Temporal dynamics at a single-cell resolution.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2022
    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.

Adam L TysonSainsbury Wellcome Centre, University College London, 25 Howland Street, London, W1T 4JG, United Kingdom.
Troy W MargrieSainsbury Wellcome Centre, University College London, 25 Howland Street, London, W1T 4JG, United Kingdom. Electronic address: t.margrie@ucl.ac.uk.

Funding

Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 090843/F/09/ZWellcome Trust 214333/Z/18/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Over the last ten years, developments in whole-brain microscopy now allow for high-resolution imaging of intact brains of small animals such as mice. These complex images contain a wealth of information, but many neuroscience laboratories do not have all of the computational knowledge and tools needed to process these data. We review recent open source tools for registration of images to atlases, and the segmentation, visualisation and analysis of brain regions and labelled structures such as neurons. Since the field lacks fully integrated analysis pipelines for all types of whole-brain microscopy analysis, we propose a pathway for tool developers to work together to meet this challenge.

Indexed as

Nervous System Physiological PhenomenaNeurosciencesAnimalsBrainImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMiceMicroscopyImage registrationNeuroscienceSegmentationVisualisationwhole Brain microscopy

Identifiers

PMID34216639
PMCPMC8786668

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.