Cited by 725

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Neuronal morphometry directly from bitmap images

Ferreira, Tiago A, Blackman, Arne V, Oyrer, Julia, Jayabal, Sriram, Chung, Andrew J, Watt, Alanna J, Sjöström, P Jesper, van Meyel, Donald J·2014·Nature Methods

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/nmeth.3125

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • Sholl analysis is a standard automated method that can characterize and quantify the complexity and extent of microglial processes.

    “we completed an extensive morphological investigation using Sholl analysis, a standard automated method (Sholl, 1953) that can characterize and quantify the complexity and extent of microglial processes (Ferreira et al., 2014; Morrison and Filosa, 2013; Heindl et al., 2018; Sipe et al., 2016).”

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Sholl, D.A. J. Anat. 87, 387–406 (1953).
  2. Ristanovic´, D. et al. J. Neurosci. Methods 158, 212–218 (2006). · DOI
  3. Buchanan, K.A. et al. Neuron 75, 451–466 (2012). · DOI · Paper page
  4. Strahler, A.N. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 63, 1117–1142 (1952). · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Ferreira, T. A., Blackman, A. V., Oyrer, J., Jayabal, S., Chung, A. J., Watt, A. J., Sjöström, P. J., & van Meyel, D. J.
Venue
Nature Methods
Published
2014-09-29
Volume
11
Issue
10
Pages
982-984
ISSN
  • 1548-7091
  • 1548-7105
Cited by
725
References
1
Language
en

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