Cargando…

Reproducibility in Nerve Morphometry: Comparison between Methods and among Observers

We investigated the reproducibility of a semiautomated method (computerized with manual intervention) for nerve morphometry (counting and measuring myelinated fibers) between three observers with different levels of expertise and experience with the method. Comparisons between automatic (fully compu...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bilego Neto, Antônio Paulo da Costa, Silveira, Fernando Braga Cassiano, Rodrigues da Silva, Greice Anne, Sanada, Luciana Sayuri, Fazan, Valéria Paula Sassoli
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Hindawi Publishing Corporation 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3697141/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23841086
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/682849
_version_ 1782275161186107392
author Bilego Neto, Antônio Paulo da Costa
Silveira, Fernando Braga Cassiano
Rodrigues da Silva, Greice Anne
Sanada, Luciana Sayuri
Fazan, Valéria Paula Sassoli
author_facet Bilego Neto, Antônio Paulo da Costa
Silveira, Fernando Braga Cassiano
Rodrigues da Silva, Greice Anne
Sanada, Luciana Sayuri
Fazan, Valéria Paula Sassoli
author_sort Bilego Neto, Antônio Paulo da Costa
collection PubMed
description We investigated the reproducibility of a semiautomated method (computerized with manual intervention) for nerve morphometry (counting and measuring myelinated fibers) between three observers with different levels of expertise and experience with the method. Comparisons between automatic (fully computerized) and semiautomated morphometric methods performed by the same computer software using the same nerve images were also performed. Sural nerves of normal adult rats were used. Automatic and semiautomated morphometry of the myelinated fibers were made through the computer software KS-400. Semiautomated morphometry was conducted by three independent observers on the same images, using the semiautomated method. Automatic morphometry overestimated the myelin sheath area, thus overestimating the myelinated fiber size and underestimating the axon size. Fiber distributions overestimation was of 0.5 μm. For the semiautomated morphometry, no differences were found between observers for myelinated fiber and axon size distributions. Overestimation of the myelin sheath size of normal fibers by the fully automatic method might have an impact when morphometry is used for diagnostic purposes. We suggest that not only semiautomated morphometry results can be compared between different centers in clinical trials but it can also be performed by more than one investigator in one single experiment, being a reliable and reproducible method.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3697141
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher Hindawi Publishing Corporation
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-36971412013-07-09 Reproducibility in Nerve Morphometry: Comparison between Methods and among Observers Bilego Neto, Antônio Paulo da Costa Silveira, Fernando Braga Cassiano Rodrigues da Silva, Greice Anne Sanada, Luciana Sayuri Fazan, Valéria Paula Sassoli Biomed Res Int Research Article We investigated the reproducibility of a semiautomated method (computerized with manual intervention) for nerve morphometry (counting and measuring myelinated fibers) between three observers with different levels of expertise and experience with the method. Comparisons between automatic (fully computerized) and semiautomated morphometric methods performed by the same computer software using the same nerve images were also performed. Sural nerves of normal adult rats were used. Automatic and semiautomated morphometry of the myelinated fibers were made through the computer software KS-400. Semiautomated morphometry was conducted by three independent observers on the same images, using the semiautomated method. Automatic morphometry overestimated the myelin sheath area, thus overestimating the myelinated fiber size and underestimating the axon size. Fiber distributions overestimation was of 0.5 μm. For the semiautomated morphometry, no differences were found between observers for myelinated fiber and axon size distributions. Overestimation of the myelin sheath size of normal fibers by the fully automatic method might have an impact when morphometry is used for diagnostic purposes. We suggest that not only semiautomated morphometry results can be compared between different centers in clinical trials but it can also be performed by more than one investigator in one single experiment, being a reliable and reproducible method. Hindawi Publishing Corporation 2013 2013-06-13 /pmc/articles/PMC3697141/ /pubmed/23841086 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/682849 Text en Copyright © 2013 Antônio Paulo da Costa Bilego Neto et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Bilego Neto, Antônio Paulo da Costa
Silveira, Fernando Braga Cassiano
Rodrigues da Silva, Greice Anne
Sanada, Luciana Sayuri
Fazan, Valéria Paula Sassoli
Reproducibility in Nerve Morphometry: Comparison between Methods and among Observers
title Reproducibility in Nerve Morphometry: Comparison between Methods and among Observers
title_full Reproducibility in Nerve Morphometry: Comparison between Methods and among Observers
title_fullStr Reproducibility in Nerve Morphometry: Comparison between Methods and among Observers
title_full_unstemmed Reproducibility in Nerve Morphometry: Comparison between Methods and among Observers
title_short Reproducibility in Nerve Morphometry: Comparison between Methods and among Observers
title_sort reproducibility in nerve morphometry: comparison between methods and among observers
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3697141/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23841086
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/682849
work_keys_str_mv AT bilegonetoantoniopaulodacosta reproducibilityinnervemorphometrycomparisonbetweenmethodsandamongobservers
AT silveirafernandobragacassiano reproducibilityinnervemorphometrycomparisonbetweenmethodsandamongobservers
AT rodriguesdasilvagreiceanne reproducibilityinnervemorphometrycomparisonbetweenmethodsandamongobservers
AT sanadalucianasayuri reproducibilityinnervemorphometrycomparisonbetweenmethodsandamongobservers
AT fazanvaleriapaulasassoli reproducibilityinnervemorphometrycomparisonbetweenmethodsandamongobservers