ReviewiScience2023
Scaling up cell-counting efforts in neuroscience through semi-automated methods.
Review in iScience, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- CalciMAP: High-resolution images showing calbindin- and parvalbumin-expressing neurons across the developing and adult mouse brain.Scientific data · 2026Article
- Investigation of the myelin-amyloid interplay in Alzheimer's disease: insights from novel dsCMA imaging in mouse and human brains.Acta neuropathologica communications · 2026Article
- Molecularly defined cellular atlas of the entire mouse brain with isotropic single-cell resolution.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Software and pipelines for registration and analyses of rodent brain image data in reference atlas space.Frontiers in neuroinformatics · 2025Article
- Between neurons and networks: investigating mesoscale brain connectivity in neurological and psychiatric disorders.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2024Review
- The Locare workflow: representing neuroscience data locations as geometric objects in 3D brain atlases.Frontiers in neuroinformatics · 2024Article
- Neocortical neuronal production and maturation defects in the TcMAC21 mouse model of Down syndrome.iScience · 2023Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Quantifying how the cellular composition of brain regions vary across development, aging, sex, and disease, is crucial in experimental neuroscience, and the accuracy of different counting methods is continuously debated. Due to the tedious nature of most counting procedures, studies are often restricted to one or a few brain regions. Recently, there have been considerable methodological advances in combining semi-automated feature extraction with brain atlases for cell quantification. Such methods hold great promise for scaling up cell-counting efforts. However, little focus has been paid to how these methods should be implemented and reported to support reproducibility. Here, we provide an overview of practices for conducting and reporting cell counting in mouse and rat brains, showing that critical details for interpretation are typically lacking. We go on to discuss how novel methods may increase efficiency and reproducibility of cell counting studies. Lastly, we provide practical recommendations for researchers planning cell counting.
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.