Cited by 1,153Point processes and geometric inequalitiesMemory and Neural MechanismsMedical and Biological Sciences

Unbiased stereological estimation of the number of neurons in the human hippocampus

West, Mark J., Gundersen, H. J. G.·1990·Journal of Comparative Neurology

Abstract

The total numbers of neurons in five subdivisions of human hippocampi were estimated using unbiased Stereological principles and systematic sampling techniques. The method addresses the problems associated with the results and conclusions of previous quantitative studies, virtually all of which have been based on biased estimates of neuron densities. For each subdivision, the total number of neurons was calculated as the product of the estimate of the volume of the neuron‐containing layers and the estimate of the numerical density of neurons in the layers. Each hippocampus was cut into 3‐mm‐thick slabs, transverse to the rostrocaudal axis. One 70‐μUm‐thick section from each slab was used in the analysis. The volumes of the layers containing neurons in five major subdivisions of the hippocampus (granule cell layer, hilus, CA3–2, CA1, and subiculum) were estimated with point‐counting techniques after delineation of the layers on each section. The numerical densities of neurons in each subdivision were estimated on the same sections with optical directors. The sampling used in both estimates was performed systematically in all three dimensions. In an example of five hippocampi, the mean numbers of neurons (CV = SD/mean) in the different subdivisions were as follows: granule cells 15 × 10 6 (0.28), hilus 2.0 × 10 6 (0.16), CA3‐2 2.7 × 10 6 (0.22), CA1 16 × 10 6 (0.32), subiculum 4.5 × 10 6 (0.19). The stereological measurements contributed approximately 25% of the observed variance. Among the five subjects there was a significant inverse relationship between age (which ranged from 47 to 85 years) and the total number of neurons in CA1 (which ranged from 24 to 11 × 10 6). An optimized sampling scheme for studies of the number of neurons in the human hippocampus has been designed on the basis of an analysis of variance of the estimates at different levels of the sampling scheme. Counting neurons in the five subdivisions of the human hippocampus with the optimized sampling scheme takes less than 4 hours.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/cne.902960102

Cites

46 of 46 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Coefficients of error were calculated as estimates of precision; values were 0.047 ± 0.006667 for pSer-129+ cells and 0.063 ± 0.012 for GFP+ cells in NHPs, and 0.105 ± 0.0087 for GFP+ cells in rats.

    “The coefficients of error (CE) were calculated according to the procedure of Gunderson and colleagues as estimates of precision [66]. The values of CE were 0.047 ± 0.006667 (Gunndersen m = 0) for pSer-129+ cells and 0.063 ± 0.012 (Gunndersen m = 0) for GFP+ cells in NHPs, and 0.105 ± 0.0087 GFP+ cells for rats.”
  • Stereological counting methods using the optical fractionator probe in Stereo Investigator were applied to estimate GFP+ or pSer-129+ cells in rats and monkeys in an unbiased fashion.

    “In order to estimate the number cells transduced by Olig001, GFP+ or pSer-129+ cells in rats and monkeys in an unbiased fashion, stereological counting methods [66] using the optical fractionator probe in Stereo Investigator (Microbrightfield Bioscience, Version10.40) were applied.”
  • The first section plane was placed randomly to ensure unbiased estimation.

    “To ensure that the estimation was unbiased, the first section plane was placed randomly within the first interval length (West and Gundersen, 1990).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 47 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
West, M. J., & Gundersen, H. J. G.
Affiliations
Aarhus University (DK)
Corresponding author
West, Mark J.
Venue
Journal of Comparative Neurology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1990-06
Volume
296
Issue
1
Pages
1-22
ISSN
  • 0021-9967 (ISSN-L)
  • 1096-9861
OpenAlex
W2014892312
Cited by
1,153
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 24 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 40 · 2017: 27 · 2016: 32 · 2015: 30 · 2014: 38 · 2013: 40 · 2012: 41
FWCI
46.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The Journal of Comparative Neurology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Sundhed og Sygdom, Det Frie Forskningsråd
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Applied Mathematics › Point processes and geometric inequalities
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anatomy › Medical and Biological Sciences
Keywords
human hippocampus, neuron number estimation, neuronal density, unbiased stereology, optical disector, point counts, CA1, CA3, subiculum, granular layer, hilus, age-related neuronal loss
MeSH terms
Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Cell Count, Hippocampus, Humans, Middle Aged

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review