Linked Life Data

11163882

Source:http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/id/11163882

Statements in which the resource exists as a subject.
PredicateObject
rdf:type
lifeskim:mentions
pubmed:issue
1
pubmed:dateCreated
2001-2-22
pubmed:abstractText
In recent years, it has been argued by some neuroanatomists that three-dimensional (3-D) counting approaches must be used in studies of neural systems, so that 'unbiased' counts of neurons can be obtained. By contrast, two-dimensional (2-D) cell-counting methods are said to be 'assumption-based' and to yield inaccurate results. Working from the premise that all scientific methodologies are assumption-based and suffer from inherent biases, the current review considers the relative strengths and weaknesses of 2-D versus 3-D counting approaches. This comparison is from the standpoint of predictive performance with respect to bias, variance and fidelity to the actual spatial arrangements of cells in the tissue under study. When these considerations are taken, together with the human resources that are required in using either methodology, 2-D methods offer more practical alternatives that might even provide more scientifically accurate estimates compared with their 3-D counterparts.
pubmed:commentsCorrections
pubmed:language
eng
pubmed:journal
pubmed:citationSubset
IM
pubmed:status
MEDLINE
pubmed:month
Jan
pubmed:issn
0166-2236
pubmed:author
pubmed:issnType
Print
pubmed:volume
24
pubmed:owner
NLM
pubmed:authorsComplete
Y
pubmed:pagination
11-7
pubmed:dateRevised
2007-11-15
pubmed:meshHeading
pubmed:year
2001
pubmed:articleTitle
Two-dimensional versus three-dimensional cell counting: a practical perspective.
pubmed:affiliation
Laboratory of Structural Neuroscience, McLean Hospital, Belmont, MA, USA. benesf@mclean.harvard.edu
pubmed:publicationType
Journal Article, Comparative Study