Premium
Prediction of the variance of stereological volume estimates from systematic sections using computer‐intensive methods
Author(s) -
MATTFELDT TORSTEN
Publication year - 2006
Publication title -
journal of microscopy
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.569
H-Index - 111
eISSN - 1365-2818
pISSN - 0022-2720
DOI - 10.1111/j.1365-2818.2006.01584.x
Subject(s) - volume (thermodynamics) , stereology , variance (accounting) , computer science , statistics , mathematics , medicine , physics , pathology , accounting , business , quantum mechanics
The Cavalieri method is an unbiased estimator of the total volume of a body from its transectional areas on systematic sections. The coefficient of error ( CE ) of the Cavalieri estimator was predicted by a computer‐intensive method. The method is based on polynomial regression of area values on section number and simulation of systematic sectioning. The measurement function is modelled as a quadratic polynomial, with an error term superimposed. The relative influence of the trend and the error component is estimated by techniques of analysis of variance. This predictor was compared with two established short‐cut estimators of the CE based on transitive theory. First, all predictors were applied to data sets from six deterministic models with analytically known CE . For these models, the CE was best predicted by the older short‐cut estimator and by the computer‐intensive approach, if the measurement function had finite jumps. The best prediction was provided by the newer short‐cut estimator when the measurement function was continuous. The predictors were also applied to published empirical datasets. The first data set consisted of 10 series of areas of systematically sectioned rat hearts with 10–13 items, the second data set consisted of 13 series of systematically sampled transectional areas of various biological structures with 38–90 items. On the whole, similar mean values for the predicted CE were obtained with the older short‐cut estimator and the computer‐intensive method. These ranged in the same order of magnitude as resampling estimates of the CE from the empirical data sets, which were used as a cross‐check. The mean values according to the newer short‐cut CE estimator ranged distinctly lower than the resampling estimates. However, for individual data sets, it happened that the closest prediction as compared to the cross‐check value could be provided by any of the three methods. This finding is discussed in terms of the statistical variability of the resampling estimate itself.