1981
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2818.1981.tb01199.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Optimizing sampling efficiency of stereological studies in biology: or ‘Do more less well!‘

Abstract: SUMMARYThe aim of the sampling design for stereology is to obtain the maximal amount of quantitative structural information at a given total cost or effort. Principles of such optimal designs are discussed and methods for generating them are illustrated by a biological example. In general, the variation between different individuals—the biological variation—is the major determinant of overall efficiency, whereas the variation between single microscopic features is unimportant. It follows that the expenditure o… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

4
251
1
5

Year Published

1989
1989
2007
2007

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 503 publications
(261 citation statements)
references
References 8 publications
4
251
1
5
Order By: Relevance
“…Stereology Using computer-assisted stereology, volumes for MRI slices and tissue sections were estimated using the Cavalieri principle with point counting (Gundersen and Østerby 1981;Gunderson Fig. 1 a-j Representative T2-weighted MRI of serial sections through the entire mouse hippocampus (outlined), with an interslice distance of 1 mm.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Stereology Using computer-assisted stereology, volumes for MRI slices and tissue sections were estimated using the Cavalieri principle with point counting (Gundersen and Østerby 1981;Gunderson Fig. 1 a-j Representative T2-weighted MRI of serial sections through the entire mouse hippocampus (outlined), with an interslice distance of 1 mm.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In order to capture the majority of variability withinand between-mice for each group, data were collected at a high level of stringency, i.e., the coefficient of error (CE) was less than one-half of the biological variability (Gundersen and Østerby 1981;Long et al 1998;Gundersen et al 1999). The results were calculated as mean +/− (SEM) for each group and for each modality (MRI or histology); inter-rater variation between the volumetric measurements was less than 2%.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For many features of interest in biological tissues, the observed biological variation among individuals is large, and it is useful to know whether it is worth increasing the precision of the stereological sampling or including more animals in the study (Gundersen and Osterby, 1981). One may divide the observed variance (OCV) into its two components, the true biological variation (CV) and the average sampling variation of the stereological measurement (CE) in the following equation for the number of features, N:…”
Section: Variance and Efficiency Considerationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Reliability of quantitative results from morphometrical methods (Gundersen and Osterby, 1981;Gundersen and Jensen, 1987) depends on uniform sampling at all levels from a random systematic approach, however, in clinicopathological practice, such a procedure is not always possible to achieve. In this study, all sampling steps were performed in a uniform way, with the exception of the first step when a strict systematic sampling was used.…”
Section: Morphometrical Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%