Cited by 9Cell Image Analysis TechniquesNeuroinflammation and Neurodegeneration MechanismsRetinal Imaging and Analysis

Manual versus automatic analysis of microglial density and distribution: a comparison in the hippocampus of healthy and lipopolysaccharide-challenged mature male mice

Khakpour, Mohammadparsa, Ibáñez, Fernando González, Bordeleau, Maude, Picard, Katherine, Mckee-Reid, Leo, Ben-Azu, Benneth, Maggi, Laura, Tremblay, Marie-Ève·2022·Micron

Abstract

Microglia, the immune resident cells of the central nervous system (CNS), are now recognized as performing crucial roles for maintaining homeostasis and determining the outcomes of various pathological challenges across life. While brightfield microscopy is a powerful and established tool to study microglia-mediated mechanisms underlying neurological diseases, microglial density and distribution are some of the most frequently investigated parameters. Their quantitative assessment provides relevant clues regarding dynamic densitometric changes in the microglial population across various CNS regions. Investigators often rely on a manual identification and analysis of these cells within key regions of interest, which can be time-consuming and introduce an experimenter bias. Automation of this process, which has been gaining popularity in recent years, represents a potential solution to minimize both experimenter's bias and time investment, thus increasing the efficacy of the experiment and uniformity of the collected data. We aimed to compare manual versus automatic analysis methods to determine whether an automatic analysis is efficient and accurate enough to replace a manual analysis in both homeostatic and pathological contexts (i.e., adult healthy and lipopolysaccharide-challenged adolescent male mice, respectively). To do so, we used a script that runs on the ImageJ software to perform microglial density analysis by automatic detection of microglial cells from brightfield…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.micron.2022.103334

Cites

2 of 2 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Khakpour, M., Ibáñez, F. G., Bordeleau, M., Picard, K., Mckee-Reid, L., Ben-Azu, B., Maggi, L., & Tremblay, M.-È.
Affiliations
  • University of Victoria (CA)
  • Istituto Pasteur (IT)
  • University of British Columbia (CA)
Corresponding author
Tremblay, Marie-Ève
Venue
Micron
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2022-10
Volume
161
Pages
103334
ISSN
0968-4328 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4289528570
Cited by
9
References
2
Citations by year
2025: 4 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 4
FWCI
1.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Micron (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Canadian Institutes of Health Research (46183_1)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Biophysics › Cell Image Analysis Techniques
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Neuroinflammation and Neurodegeneration Mechanisms
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Retinal Imaging and Analysis
Keywords
microglia, microglial density, automated cell detection, manual cell counting, ImageJ macro, lipopolysaccharide challenge, hippocampus, nearest neighbor distance, bright-field microscopy, researcher bias, adolescent mice
MeSH terms
Animals, Automation, Hippocampus, Lipopolysaccharides, Male, Software, Microglia, Mice

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