↓ Skip to main content

Total Number Is Important: Using the Disector Method in Design-Based Stereology to Understand the Structure of the Rodent Brain

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neuroanatomy, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
43 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
Total Number Is Important: Using the Disector Method in Design-Based Stereology to Understand the Structure of the Rodent Brain
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroanatomy, March 2018
DOI 10.3389/fnana.2018.00016
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ruth M. A. Napper

Abstract

The advantages of using design-based stereology in the collection of quantitative data, have been highlighted, in numerous publications, since the description of the disector method by Sterio (1984). This review article discusses the importance of total number derived with the disector method, as a key variable that must continue to be used to understand the rodent brain and that such data can be used to develop quantitative networks of the brain. The review article will highlight the huge impact total number has had on our understanding of the rodent brain and it will suggest that neuroscientists need to be aware of the increasing number of studies where density, not total number, is the quantitative measure used. It will emphasize that density can result in data that is misleading, most often in an unknown direction, and that we run the risk of this type of data being accepted into the collective neuroscience knowledge database. It will also suggest that design-based stereology using the disector method, can be used alongside recent developments in electron microscopy, such as serial block-face scanning electron microscopy (SEM), to obtain total number data very efficiently at the ultrastructural level. Throughout the article total number is discussed as a key parameter in understanding the micro-networks of the rodent brain as they can be represented as both anatomical and quantitative networks.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 43 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 19%
Researcher 6 14%
Other 4 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 9%
Student > Bachelor 3 7%
Other 10 23%
Unknown 8 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 15 35%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 19%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 9%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 2%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 9 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 09 March 2018.
All research outputs
#17,933,348
of 23,026,672 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroanatomy
#867
of 1,167 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#241,402
of 332,016 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroanatomy
#21
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,026,672 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,167 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.9. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 332,016 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.