↓ Skip to main content

Current automated 3D cell detection methods are not a suitable replacement for manual stereologic cell counting

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neuroanatomy, May 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
3 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
57 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
170 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Current automated 3D cell detection methods are not a suitable replacement for manual stereologic cell counting
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroanatomy, May 2014
DOI 10.3389/fnana.2014.00027
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christoph Schmitz, Brian S. Eastwood, Susan J. Tappan, Jack R. Glaser, Daniel A. Peterson, Patrick R. Hof

Abstract

Stereologic cell counting has had a major impact on the field of neuroscience. A major bottleneck in stereologic cell counting is that the user must manually decide whether or not each cell is counted according to three-dimensional (3D) stereologic counting rules by visual inspection within hundreds of microscopic fields-of-view per investigated brain or brain region. Reliance on visual inspection forces stereologic cell counting to be very labor-intensive and time-consuming, and is the main reason why biased, non-stereologic two-dimensional (2D) "cell counting" approaches have remained in widespread use. We present an evaluation of the performance of modern automated cell detection and segmentation algorithms as a potential alternative to the manual approach in stereologic cell counting. The image data used in this study were 3D microscopic images of thick brain tissue sections prepared with a variety of commonly used nuclear and cytoplasmic stains. The evaluation compared the numbers and locations of cells identified unambiguously and counted exhaustively by an expert observer with those found by three automated 3D cell detection algorithms: nuclei segmentation from the FARSIGHT toolkit, nuclei segmentation by 3D multiple level set methods, and the 3D object counter plug-in for ImageJ. Of these methods, FARSIGHT performed best, with true-positive detection rates between 38 and 99% and false-positive rates from 3.6 to 82%. The results demonstrate that the current automated methods suffer from lower detection rates and higher false-positive rates than are acceptable for obtaining valid estimates of cell numbers. Thus, at present, stereologic cell counting with manual decision for object inclusion according to unbiased stereologic counting rules remains the only adequate method for unbiased cell quantification in histologic tissue sections.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 170 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 2%
Japan 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 164 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 39 23%
Researcher 30 18%
Student > Master 23 14%
Student > Bachelor 21 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 6%
Other 30 18%
Unknown 16 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 40 24%
Neuroscience 25 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 19 11%
Engineering 19 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 18 11%
Other 25 15%
Unknown 24 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 November 2018.
All research outputs
#2,424,546
of 24,129,125 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroanatomy
#124
of 1,217 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,514
of 231,641 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroanatomy
#4
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,129,125 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,217 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 231,641 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.