ReviewBiophysical reviews2022
Recent advances in the standardization of fluorescence microscopy for quantitative image analysis.
Review in Biophysical reviews, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Meat-Borne Bacterial Pathogen Detection: Conventional, Molecular and Emerging AI-Based Strategies.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Modern RNA Quantification Methods: From RT-qPCR to Advanced Microscopy.The journal of physical chemistry. B · 2026Review
- Localization of fluorescent gold nanoparticles throughout the eye after topical administration.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Fluorescence super-resolution microscopy via fluctuation-based multi-route synergy.Biomedical optics express · 2024Article
- A NIR-Fluorochrome for Live Cell Dual Emission and Lifetime Tracking from the First Plasma Membrane Interaction to Subcellular and Extracellular Locales.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- More than double the fun with two-photon excitation microscopy.Communications biology · 2024Review
- An Image Processing Algorithm for Facile and Reproducible Quantification of Vomocytosis.Chemical & biomedical imaging · 2023Article
- Comparing and Correcting Spectral Sensitivities between Multispectral Microscopes: A Prerequisite to Clinical Implementation.Cancers · 2023Article
- Biophysical Reviews: from the umbra of 2020-2021 into the antumbra of 2022.Biophysical reviews · 2022Article
- Standardization of luminescence, fluorescence measurements, and light microscopy: Current situation and perspectives.Biophysics and physicobiology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Fluorescence microscopy is a broadly used technique within a variety of different fields, including life sciences and medical research, and its quantitative aspects are becoming emphasized. The challenge now lies in improving the accuracy and precision of the measurements obtained from fluorescence microscopy. Improving these will facilitate the comparison of results between different instruments/institutions and therefore ensure the reproducibility of results. In this review, recent standardization procedures, including the benchmarking of the instrument performance and the standardization of the image itself, as well as the reference materials for calibration are summarized, and an overview of the advances in fluorescence microscopy standardization and the current limitations are presented. A procedure for the comparison of the image data obtained using different instruments, by different analysts and/or at different times, should be developed to improve the standardization of this data. The standardization of image data would lead to the development of new applications of fluorescence microscopy not only in academic research but also in regulatory science.
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.