What question did this study set out to answer?

To examine methodological challenges and widespread sources of error in histological counting, while advocating for complete reporting of quantitative protocols.

April 8, 2002The Journal of Comparative Neurology

On counting and counting errors

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Authors

RGR. W. GuillerySemmelweis University

Discussion

Member takes

Implication

Methodological review reveals recurring errors in histological quantification, highlighting the need for transparent protocols and precise depth calibration.

Key Points

To examine methodological challenges and widespread sources of error in histological counting, while advocating for complete reporting of quantitative protocols.
Review of quantitative counting literature and historical reporting practices in neuroanatomical studies.
Evaluation of stereological counting methods requiring depth measurements along the axis perpendicular to tissue section planes.
Histological studies frequently omit essential procedural details required to independently verify counting accuracy.
Techniques relying on measurements perpendicular to the section plane present substantial practical difficulties and systematic measurement errors.

Cite This Study

R. W. Guillery (2002) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a1dc1c7cd67cee37334cdff https://doi.org/10.1002/cne.10221

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Implication

Methodological review reveals recurring errors in histological quantification, highlighting the need for transparent protocols and precise depth calibration.

On counting and counting errors

Discussion

Member takes

Implication

Key Points

Cite This Study

On counting and counting errors

Discussion

Member takes

Implication

Key Points

Cite This Study

Also Consider

Also Consider