Review



matlab-based automated netquant application  (MathWorks Inc)


Bioz Verified Symbol MathWorks Inc is a verified supplier  
  • Logo
  • About
  • News
  • Press Release
  • Team
  • Advisors
  • Partners
  • Contact
  • Bioz Stars
  • Bioz vStars
    • 90
      Buy from Supplier

    Structured Review

    MathWorks Inc matlab-based automated netquant application
    Comparison of NET quantification by hand counting semi-automated quantification and <t>NETQUANT.</t> A : Cell numbers for Image set 1 determined by all three methods, showing significantly fewer cell counts by NETQUANT in the majority of the images. B : NET formation determined by all methods revealed a significant difference between hand counting and NETQUANT as well as the semi-automated method. Statistical analysis was performed by Two-Way ANOVA with Dunnett correction for multiple comparison. Semi-automated and NETQUANT values were compared with hand counting. Data are given as mean ± SD. (*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, ****p < 0.0001).
    Matlab Based Automated Netquant Application, supplied by MathWorks Inc, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 90/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
    https://www.bioz.com/result/matlab-based automated netquant application/product/MathWorks Inc
    Average 90 stars, based on 1 article reviews
    matlab-based automated netquant application - by Bioz Stars, 2026-04
    90/100 stars

    Images

    1) Product Images from "Comparison of NET quantification methods based on immunofluorescence microscopy: Hand-counting, semi-automated and automated evaluations"

    Article Title: Comparison of NET quantification methods based on immunofluorescence microscopy: Hand-counting, semi-automated and automated evaluations

    Journal: Heliyon

    doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e16982

    Comparison of NET quantification by hand counting semi-automated quantification and NETQUANT. A : Cell numbers for Image set 1 determined by all three methods, showing significantly fewer cell counts by NETQUANT in the majority of the images. B : NET formation determined by all methods revealed a significant difference between hand counting and NETQUANT as well as the semi-automated method. Statistical analysis was performed by Two-Way ANOVA with Dunnett correction for multiple comparison. Semi-automated and NETQUANT values were compared with hand counting. Data are given as mean ± SD. (*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, ****p < 0.0001).
    Figure Legend Snippet: Comparison of NET quantification by hand counting semi-automated quantification and NETQUANT. A : Cell numbers for Image set 1 determined by all three methods, showing significantly fewer cell counts by NETQUANT in the majority of the images. B : NET formation determined by all methods revealed a significant difference between hand counting and NETQUANT as well as the semi-automated method. Statistical analysis was performed by Two-Way ANOVA with Dunnett correction for multiple comparison. Semi-automated and NETQUANT values were compared with hand counting. Data are given as mean ± SD. (*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, ****p < 0.0001).

    Techniques Used: Comparison

    Comparison of hand counting, NETQUANT, and semi-automated quantification for image set 2. A shows the cell count for the control group with the semi-automated methods giving unrealistically high values for some images. Significant differences by both semi-automated and NETQUANT compared to hand counting were apparent. In B, the pattern remained similar to A, where the semi-automated method showed remarkably higher values of cell counts in several cases. C depicts NET formation values by all three methods, with the semi-automated method showing significantly higher results than both other methods in the control group, even exceeding 100% NET formation. D shows NET formation of the stimulated group where NETQUANT exhibited values within the range of hand counting, while the semi -automated method revealed significant differences. Statistical analysis was performed by Two-Way ANOVA with Dunnett correction for multiple comparison. Semi -automated and NETQUANT values were compared to hand counting. Data are given as mean ± SD. (*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, ****p < 0.0001).
    Figure Legend Snippet: Comparison of hand counting, NETQUANT, and semi-automated quantification for image set 2. A shows the cell count for the control group with the semi-automated methods giving unrealistically high values for some images. Significant differences by both semi-automated and NETQUANT compared to hand counting were apparent. In B, the pattern remained similar to A, where the semi-automated method showed remarkably higher values of cell counts in several cases. C depicts NET formation values by all three methods, with the semi-automated method showing significantly higher results than both other methods in the control group, even exceeding 100% NET formation. D shows NET formation of the stimulated group where NETQUANT exhibited values within the range of hand counting, while the semi -automated method revealed significant differences. Statistical analysis was performed by Two-Way ANOVA with Dunnett correction for multiple comparison. Semi -automated and NETQUANT values were compared to hand counting. Data are given as mean ± SD. (*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, ****p < 0.0001).

    Techniques Used: Comparison, Cell Counting, Control



    Similar Products

    matlab-based automated netquant application  (MathWorks Inc)
    90
    MathWorks Inc matlab-based automated netquant application
    Comparison of NET quantification by hand counting semi-automated quantification and <t>NETQUANT.</t> A : Cell numbers for Image set 1 determined by all three methods, showing significantly fewer cell counts by NETQUANT in the majority of the images. B : NET formation determined by all methods revealed a significant difference between hand counting and NETQUANT as well as the semi-automated method. Statistical analysis was performed by Two-Way ANOVA with Dunnett correction for multiple comparison. Semi-automated and NETQUANT values were compared with hand counting. Data are given as mean ± SD. (*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, ****p < 0.0001).
    Matlab Based Automated Netquant Application, supplied by MathWorks Inc, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 90/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
    https://www.bioz.com/result/matlab-based automated netquant application/product/MathWorks Inc
    Average 90 stars, based on 1 article reviews
    matlab-based automated netquant application - by Bioz Stars, 2026-04
    90/100 stars
    		  Buy from Supplier

    Image Search Results


    Comparison of NET quantification by hand counting semi-automated quantification and NETQUANT. A : Cell numbers for Image set 1 determined by all three methods, showing significantly fewer cell counts by NETQUANT in the majority of the images. B : NET formation determined by all methods revealed a significant difference between hand counting and NETQUANT as well as the semi-automated method. Statistical analysis was performed by Two-Way ANOVA with Dunnett correction for multiple comparison. Semi-automated and NETQUANT values were compared with hand counting. Data are given as mean ± SD. (*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, ****p < 0.0001).

    Journal: Heliyon

    Article Title: Comparison of NET quantification methods based on immunofluorescence microscopy: Hand-counting, semi-automated and automated evaluations

    doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e16982

    Figure Lengend Snippet: Comparison of NET quantification by hand counting semi-automated quantification and NETQUANT. A : Cell numbers for Image set 1 determined by all three methods, showing significantly fewer cell counts by NETQUANT in the majority of the images. B : NET formation determined by all methods revealed a significant difference between hand counting and NETQUANT as well as the semi-automated method. Statistical analysis was performed by Two-Way ANOVA with Dunnett correction for multiple comparison. Semi-automated and NETQUANT values were compared with hand counting. Data are given as mean ± SD. (*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, ****p < 0.0001).

    Article Snippet: Therefore, in the present study, we aimed to compare the evaluation of two sets of immunofluorescence images using three different approaches: (1) hand counting, (2) semi-automated quantification [ ], and (3) the MATLAB-based automated NETQUANT application [ ].

    Techniques: Comparison

    Comparison of hand counting, NETQUANT, and semi-automated quantification for image set 2. A shows the cell count for the control group with the semi-automated methods giving unrealistically high values for some images. Significant differences by both semi-automated and NETQUANT compared to hand counting were apparent. In B, the pattern remained similar to A, where the semi-automated method showed remarkably higher values of cell counts in several cases. C depicts NET formation values by all three methods, with the semi-automated method showing significantly higher results than both other methods in the control group, even exceeding 100% NET formation. D shows NET formation of the stimulated group where NETQUANT exhibited values within the range of hand counting, while the semi -automated method revealed significant differences. Statistical analysis was performed by Two-Way ANOVA with Dunnett correction for multiple comparison. Semi -automated and NETQUANT values were compared to hand counting. Data are given as mean ± SD. (*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, ****p < 0.0001).

    Journal: Heliyon

    Article Title: Comparison of NET quantification methods based on immunofluorescence microscopy: Hand-counting, semi-automated and automated evaluations

    doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e16982

    Figure Lengend Snippet: Comparison of hand counting, NETQUANT, and semi-automated quantification for image set 2. A shows the cell count for the control group with the semi-automated methods giving unrealistically high values for some images. Significant differences by both semi-automated and NETQUANT compared to hand counting were apparent. In B, the pattern remained similar to A, where the semi-automated method showed remarkably higher values of cell counts in several cases. C depicts NET formation values by all three methods, with the semi-automated method showing significantly higher results than both other methods in the control group, even exceeding 100% NET formation. D shows NET formation of the stimulated group where NETQUANT exhibited values within the range of hand counting, while the semi -automated method revealed significant differences. Statistical analysis was performed by Two-Way ANOVA with Dunnett correction for multiple comparison. Semi -automated and NETQUANT values were compared to hand counting. Data are given as mean ± SD. (*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, ****p < 0.0001).

    Article Snippet: Therefore, in the present study, we aimed to compare the evaluation of two sets of immunofluorescence images using three different approaches: (1) hand counting, (2) semi-automated quantification [ ], and (3) the MATLAB-based automated NETQUANT application [ ].

    Techniques: Comparison, Cell Counting, Control