English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The use of morphometrical tools in biomedical research permits the accurate comparison of specimens subjected to different conditions, and the surface density of structures is commonly used for this purpose. The traditional point-counting method is reliable but time-consuming, with computer-aided methods being proposed as an alternative. The aim of this study was to compare the surface density data of penile corpus cavernosum trabecular smooth muscle in different groups of rats, measured by two observers using the point-counting or color-based segmentation method. Ten normotensive and 10 hypertensive male rats were used in this study. Rat penises were processed to obtain smooth muscle immunostained histological slices and photomicrographs captured for analysis. The smooth muscle surface density was measured in both groups by two different observers by the point-counting  method and by the color-based segmentation method. Hypertensive rats showed an increase in smooth muscle surface density by the two methods, and no difference was found between the results of the two observers. However, surface density values were higher by the point-counting method. The use of either method did not influence the final interpretation of the results, and both proved to have adequate reproducibility. However, as differences were found between the two methods, results obtained by either method should not be compared.

How to Quantify Penile Corpus Cavernosum Structures with Histomorphometry: Comparison of Two Methods