Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 83 references

Decoding Gray Matter: large-scale analysis of brain cell morphometry to inform microstructural modeling of diffusion MR signals

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Analysis of over 11,500 brain cell reconstructions maps which grey-matter features diffusion MRI can detect.

desk verdict A genuinely useful morphometric reference for grey matter dMRI modeling, held back by an unvalidated soma segmentation and a promised-but-missing data release, but worth sending to review. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.02100 v4 pith:APVRF7II submitted 2025-01-03 physics.bio-ph physics.med-ph

Charlie Aird-Rossiter , Hui Zhang , Daniel C. Alexander , Derek K. Jones , Marco Palombo This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.bio-phphysics.med-ph
keywords diffusionMRIgreymattercellmorphometrybiophysicalmodelingmorphologicalreferencevaluesneuronalandglialcellstopologicaldataanalysis3Dmeshes
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Diffusion MRI can sense micrometer-scale structure only indirectly, and grey matter has lacked the ground-truth cell morphologies needed to interpret the signal. This paper tries to close that gap by analyzing more than 11,500 three-dimensional reconstructions of nine brain cell types from mouse/rat, monkey, and human, and publishing reference ranges for the traits that matter: soma size, branch length, surface-to-volume ratios, shape anisotropy, and branching topology. From those numbers it derives time-scale estimates showing which traits a typical clinical diffusion experiment can detect: soma restriction and water exchange between projections and the space around them are measurable, while branch curvature, whole-cell domain restriction, and branching are not. The topological and shape analyses also identify which cell types differ enough to be separable, such as glia versus neurons in rodents, and which look conserved across species, such as microglia. The accompanying 50 high-resolution 3D meshes give modelers concrete cell geometries for simulations, turning the paper into a benchmark resource for grey-matter microstructure imaging.

What carries the argument

The machine that carries the analysis is a cell-by-cell morphometry pipeline applied to skeleton-format reconstructions (SWC files), a standard textual representation of cell nodes, connections, and radii. Each cell is split at the nominal soma radius into a soma and its projections; the soma is turned into a 3D mesh for volume and surface; projections are divided into branches and then into cylindrical subsegments; and the branch radii, lengths, angles, curvature, undulation, and surface-to-volume ratios are summarized as quartiles within each species and cell-type group. Two derived quantities carry much of the argument: the effective MR radii $\mathrm{RMR}_{\mathrm{soma}} = (\langle R_{\mathrm{soma}}^7\rangle / \langle R_{\mathrm{soma}}^3\rangle)^{1/4}$ and $\mathrm{RMR}_{\mathrm{branch}} = (\langle R_{\mathrm{branch}}^6\rangle / \langle R_{\mathrm{branch}}^2\rangle)^{1/4}$, which set the length scale relevant to diffusion MRI, and the residence and exchange times $\tau_i = 1/((S/V)\kappa)$ and $\tau_{\mathrm{ex}} = \tau_i f_{\mathrm{ec}}$, which convert surface-to-volume ratios and membrane permeability into the time scales that determine whether a feature is detectable. Shape descriptors come from decomposing cells into 10 $\mu$m cylinders and fitting orientation distributions; topology comes from persistence barcodes of branch paths relative to the soma.

What would settle it

Take a sample of the analyzed reconstructions and recompute every soma metric after shifting the soma boundary by plus or minus 20 percent, and where possible compare against high-resolution electron microscopy images of the same cells; if the resulting soma radii, MR radii, or residence times move by more than their reported interquartile ranges, the reference values are too threshold-sensitive to anchor diffusion models.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims to provide the first systematic empirical reference set for grey-matter diffusion modeling. From 11,850 three-dimensional reconstructions of nine cell types across mouse/rat, monkey, and human cortex, it derives quartile distributions for structural traits (soma radius, branch length, surface-to-volume ratios, curvature and tortuosity), shape traits (fractional anisotropy and orientation dispersion of the arbor), and topological traits (persistence barcodes and pairwise distances between cell types). Its central discovery is a set of time-scale estimates: under typical clinical diffusion times, soma restriction and water exchange between projections and the extracellular space are the features diffusion MRI can detect, while branch curvature, whole-cell domain restriction, and branching order are largely invisible. It also supplies 50 high-resolution 3D surface meshes, one per available cell-type and species combination, intended for Monte Carlo simulation of diffusion signals.

Load-bearing premise

The reported soma measurements assume that the radius attached to the first node of each reconstruction marks the true boundary between the cell body and its branches; if that boundary is wrong, soma volume, surface, MR radius, and all derived exchange times shift with it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If these reference values are right, grey-matter dMRI models should keep a soma compartment: at a soma radius near 5 µm, soma restriction is detectable for water at diffusion times above about 2.5 ms and for metabolites above about 12.5 ms.
  • Water exchange between projections and the extracellular space is a measurable effect at typical clinical times (derived exchange times roughly 3–30 ms), so exchange-inclusive models are preferable when the diffusion time exceeds a few tens of milliseconds.
  • Branch curvature, whole-cell domain restriction, and branching are negligible at standard diffusion times, since their effects only appear at hundreds of milliseconds or more, supporting simplified cylinder or stick models for many acquisitions.
  • Fractional anisotropy and orientation dispersion can separate cells with polarized arbors such as Purkinje and granule cells from most glial cells, making DTI- and NODDI-style contrasts plausible readouts of cortical and cerebellar cytoarchitecture.
  • In rodents, glial and neuronal morphologies are topologically distant, which supports the prospect of separating glial and neuronal contributions to the dMRI signal through appropriate modeling.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial extension: using the provided meshes in Monte Carlo simulators, one could directly estimate whether glial and neuronal morphologies produce distinguishable diffusion-weighted signals at clinically realistic noise levels; the paper furnishes the geometry but does not run those simulations.
  • Editorial extension: because the reference values come from spine-free reconstructions, modelers could combine the reported branch surface-to-volume ratios with published spine densities to predict how much in-vivo residence-time estimates would shorten; the paper flags the effect but does not fold it into its headline time cutoffs.
  • Editorial extension: the persistence-barcode distances could be turned into a healthy-tissue baseline, allowing the same topological pipeline to score pathological samples for morphology changes; this is a use the paper's resource enables but does not itself claim.
  • Editorial extension: the reported sensitivity of soma metrics to the nominal soma boundary suggests a practical calibration study, recomputing all reference values under a range of soma-radius thresholds to identify which descriptors are stable enough for clinical model fitting.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper presents a large-scale morphometric analysis of 11,850 three-dimensional SWC neuronal and glial reconstructions from the NeuroMorpho database, spanning four species (mouse, rat, monkey, human) and nine cell types. It computes structural, shape, and topological descriptors, reports reference values (quartiles and distributions) for each cell type and species, and interprets these values in terms of their relevance for diffusion-weighted MRI (dMRI) microstructural modeling. The authors derive example predictions for soma restriction, diffusion-mediated exchange, branch undulation, and permeative exchange times, and provide 50 high-resolution 3D surface meshes compatible with Monte Carlo simulators. The paper's central claim is that these reference values and meshes establish an empirical foundation for gray matter dMRI modeling and identify which neural features are detectable by dMRI.

Significance. The resource aspect of the paper is strong: a curated, quality-filtered set of 11,850 reconstructions with computed morphometric distributions, plus 50 surface meshes for simulation studies, is a valuable contribution that directly addresses a recognized gap in gray matter dMRI modeling. The authors are careful to distinguish measured quantities from literature-derived parameters (e.g., permeability, extracellular volume fraction), and they explicitly acknowledge several limitations, including the absence of spines and the crude soma surface definition. If the soma-segmentation concern is addressed, the paper will provide a useful benchmark dataset and a clear template for propagating morphometric measurements into dMRI model predictions. The topological persistence analysis and the demonstration that glial and neuronal topologies differ in rodents are also of interest. The code and data release plans further strengthen the contribution. However, the reliability of soma-related reference values is currently undermined by the unvalidated soma boundary definition, which propagates into soma size, surface-to-volume ratio, and derived exchange-time predictions.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.2, Figure 2, Section 4.3, Table 2] The definition of the soma boundary is load-bearing for a large fraction of the reported reference values. In Section 2.2, all nodes within the nominal soma radius (radius of the first SWC node from the root) are assigned to the soma, and this threshold directly determines Rsoma, RM Rsoma, S/Vsoma, ηsoma, and the soma-derived residence and exchange times reported in Table 2 and Section 4.2. The paper acknowledges in Figure 2 that this soma surface definition is 'slightly inaccurate' and in Section 4.3 states that soma volume is expected to be underestimated by 'on average <20%', but no validation or sensitivity analysis is provided to support this bound. The nominal radius from the SWC root node is a well-known crude proxy for the true soma boundary, particularly for glial cells with irregular somata. Because the residence-time predictions in Section 4.2 scale with R_soma^2 (soma restriction) and R_soma^3 (soma residence time), an unquantified 20% error in soma radius would translate into substantially larger errors in the predicted diffusion-time thresholds. Please add a quantitative validation of the soma segmentation against an independent method on a subset of reconstructions, or at least a sensitivity analysis in which the threshold is varied and the resulting changes in soma metrics and derived predictions are reported.
  2. [Section 4.2, 'Impact of soma restriction' and 'Impact of diffusion-mediated exchange between soma and projections'] The illustrative dMRI predictions in Section 4.2 depend directly on the soma radius values. For example, the text states that soma restriction becomes measurable for td ≥ 2.5 ms for water using Rsoma ≈ 5 µm, and td ≥ 5 ms using RM Rsoma ≈ 7 µm. Since the criterion is 5D td ≥ R_soma^2, a 20% underestimation in soma radius would change the predicted td threshold by roughly a factor of 1.44 (i.e., ~40% shift). Similarly, the soma-to-projection exchange estimate uses τ_soma^i = π R_soma^3 / (3 R_branch sqrt(N_proj) D), which is cubic in Rsoma. The paper should propagate the uncertainty from the soma boundary definition into these example calculations so readers can see how robust the qualitative conclusions are.
  3. [Section 2.3, Table 4, Figure 3] The computation of fractional anisotropy (FA) depends on two arbitrary or heuristic choices: the cylinder segment length (set to 10 µm) used to decompose each cell, and the 'adjusted FA' procedure that forces τ1 = τ2 to correct for depth-of-field anisotropy. The segment length is not justified, and no sensitivity analysis is reported for FA with respect to this length. The adjusted FA is a post-hoc correction that assumes the imaging artifact only affects the smallest eigenvalue; this is a strong assumption that is not validated. Since FA and adjusted FA are reported as reference values in Table 4 and used in the orientation-dispersion discussion in Section 4.2, the method-dependence of these values should be quantified or explicitly flagged as heuristic. At minimum, please report the sensitivity of FA to the segment length and justify the τ1 = τ2 adjustment with evidence from the reconstructions or a controlled phantom experiment.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Abstract and Section 1] The number of analyzed reconstructions is inconsistent: the abstract states 11,500, while the introduction and Section 2.1 state 11,850. Please unify these numbers.
  2. [Table 2, Table 1] Table 2 is captioned as 'mean ± s.d.' but the columns clearly report quartiles (Q1, median, Q3) as indicated in the text. Either the caption or the table formatting should be corrected. In addition, the formula for RM Rbranch in Table 1 uses '<R^6_soma>' and '<R^2_soma>' instead of branch radii; this is a typographical error that should read '<R^6_branch>' and '<R^2_branch>'.
  3. [Section 2.3] The FA formula uses τ (with an overbar) without defining it; the text should define it as the mean eigenvalue (τ1+τ2+τ3)/3 for clarity.
  4. [Section 4.2] There is a typo: 'metaboilites' should be 'metabolites'. Also, in the sentence 'these estimates become longer if we consider the effective MR radii RM Rsomaand RM Rbranch', a space is missing between 'RM Rsoma' and 'and'.
  5. [Section 2.4] The term 'overlab' in the definition of the topological distance D should be 'overlap'.
  6. [Section 3.4, Table 4] Some cell-type/species combinations have very small sample sizes (e.g., N=4, N=6, N=11). While these are indicated in Table 2, the shape-descriptor table (Table 4) does not report sample sizes; adding them (or a reference to Table 2) would help readers judge the reliability of the reported FA and OD values.
  7. [Section 2.2, Figure 2] The figure caption mentions 'arrows' in the top right corner, but the arrows are not visible in the figure as reproduced; please ensure the pointing elements are visible or rephrase the caption to describe the limitation directly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circular derivation: morphometric reference values are direct measurements with literature-based formulas; self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central contribution is an empirical morphometric survey: structural, shape, and topological descriptors are computed directly from NeuroMorpho SWC reconstructions using established or cited formulas, not fitted to dMRI data. The soma radius, branch radii, S/V ratios, FA, OD, persistence distances, and residence/exchange times all follow from measured geometry plus externally published equations (e.g., RM R from [27,34], residence time from [53,54], restriction criterion from [72], curvedness criterion from [73]). No equation reduces a reported value to a fitted parameter, and no 'prediction' is statistically forced by a fit to the data being predicted. The paper does cite several works by its own authors (SANDI [32], generative cell models [52], etc.) as motivation or corroboration, but these citations are not the load-bearing argument: the key sensitivity statements in Sec. 4.2 are derived from the measured reference values and external analytical criteria, with the self-citations only adding supporting context. The acknowledged limitation that the soma boundary uses the SWC nominal soma radius and may bias soma volume by <20% is an accuracy concern, not circularity, because the reported values are measurements with stated caveats rather than outputs of a model fitted to those same measurements. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained against external benchmarks, so no specific circular step can be quoted.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the fidelity and representativeness of the NeuroMorpho reconstructions, the soma segmentation rule, and literature formulas for effective MR radii and residence times. No new physical entities are introduced. The hand-chosen parameters are methodological (cylinder length, kappa selection rule) and illustrative physiological inputs (permeability, ECS fraction), none of which are fitted to the morphometric data.

free parameters (4)
  • Cylinder segment length for FA decomposition = 10 µm
    Chosen in Section 2.3; affects FA and OD estimates but not the core structural reference values.
  • Bingham-to-Watson selection rule = kappa1 >> kappa2 (qualitative)
    Section 2.3: if the first Bingham concentration parameter is 'significantly larger' than the second, kappa2 is used as the Watson kappa; otherwise the average is used. The threshold is not quantified, affecting OD values.
  • Membrane permeability values = 2 and 20 µm/s
    Chosen in Section 2.2 and Fig 7 as low and high representatives from the literature range (2-35 µm/s); used to compute residence and exchange time distributions. Not fitted to data.
  • Extracellular volume fraction = 30%
    Assumed in Section 2.2 for exchange time estimates; based on literature, not measured in this study.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption SWC reconstructions in NeuroMorpho accurately represent the 3D morphology of healthy cells of the stated types and species.
    The entire analysis is based on these reconstructions; selection criteria are described in Section 2.1, but fidelity to in vivo morphology (including shrinkage and truncation effects) is assumed.
  • domain assumption The soma boundary is identified as all nodes within the nominal soma radius (radius of the first node) from the root node.
    Section 2.2 uses this rule to separate soma from projections; the authors acknowledge in Fig 2 that the soma surface definition is approximate.
  • domain assumption The effective MR radius formulas (RMR_soma = (<R^7>/<R^3>)^{1/4}, RMR_branch = (<R^6>/<R^2>)^{1/4}) from cited literature correctly characterize MR-relevant radii.
    Used in Section 2.2 to compute RM Rsoma and RM Rbranch; taken from Olesen et al. [34] and Veraart et al. [27].
  • domain assumption The residence time relation tau_i = 1/(S/V * kappa) and exchange time tau_ex = tau_i / f_ec apply to these cellular compartments.
    Used in Section 2.2 to estimate residence and exchange times; assumes well-mixed compartments and barrier-limited exchange, from references [53,54].
  • domain assumption The 10 micron cylinder decomposition and scatter-matrix FA computation (Hansen et al. [45]) adequately represent cellular shape for FA/OD.
    Used in Section 2.3 for shape descriptors.
  • standard math The topological persistence barcode via TMD captures cell-type-distinguishing topology.
    TMD is a published method [61]; persistence images and distance D are computed as in that reference.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Decoding Gray Matter: large-scale analysis of brain cell morphometry to inform microstructural modeling of diffusion MR signals." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/APVRF7II

@misc{pith2026250102100,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Decoding Gray Matter: large-scale analysis of brain cell morphometry to inform microstructural modeling of diffusion MR signals},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/APVRF7II}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.02100}
}
read the original abstract

The structure of grey matter has long been a key focus in neuroscience, as cell morphology varies by type and can be affected by neurological conditions. Understanding these variations is essential for studying brain function and disease. Diffusion-weighted MRI (dMRI) is a powerful non-invasive tool for examining cellular microstructure in vivo. However, for dMRI to accurately reflect cellular features, it is crucial to determine which aspects of morphology influence its measurements. Proper interpretation of dMRI data depends on understanding its sensitivity to different cellular characteristics. Despite growing interest in cellular morphology, there has been no systematic report on the key features defining different neural cell types. To address this, we analyzed over 11,500 three-dimensional cellular reconstructions across three species and nine cell types, establishing reference values for critical morphological traits. These traits fall into three categories: structural features that define the cell's skeletal framework, shape features that describe spatial organization, and topological features that break down cellular structure to distinguish cell types. Beyond reporting these reference values, we examine their relevance for dMRI, identifying which neural features dMRI can detect and which cell types may be distinguishable. To complement the statistical analysis, we also provide high resolution 3D surface meshes representative of each cell type and species. This work provides essential benchmarks for grey matter research, offering new guidelines on linking neuroimaging measurements to neurobiology. These reference values will be a valuable resource for neuroscientists and neuroimaging researchers, aiding in the interpretation of imaging data and the refinement of brain tissue models.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.02100 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Fig.1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. An example of SWC file and how it relates to the cellular geometry. We highlight the structural elements used to estimate the morpho￾logical features. Note that the first node in the SWC file is the so called ‘root’. It often coincides with the soma’s centre and it is used to compute metrics. diameters and angles; and being 3D reconstructions (see Supplementary Fig.1). Our quality assessment criteria include: consis… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Illustration of the structural descriptors investigated for an exemplar cell. We estimated general features of the whole structure and separated soma from projections, processing them individually to estimate a set of other relevant features. Additionally, we display the Gaussian curvature of the soma surface to show that it is a non-spherical geometry (always positive but not constant). A limitation of the current … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: A demonstration of procedure used to decompose the cel￾lular structure into a set of average lines segments. A. the complete cell. B. cell decomposed into topological persistence components. C. cell fur￾ther decomposed into 10 µm segments. D. average line segments fitt…
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: A comparison between two cell types, mouse/rat pyramidal and granule cells. Showing exemplar cells overlaid with decomposed line segments, the line segments centered at the origin, and orientation distribution about the z axis of the line segments and the analytical di…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: A representation of the process of decomposing a cellular structure (here a mouse/rat pyramidal cell) into its corresponding topologi￾cal persistence bar code for an apical and basal projection. A. The complete cellular structure of an exemplar cell, apical projection …
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Fig.4. Some consistent and expected patterns are observed, particularly involv [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Distributions of soma radius, branch length, branch surface￾to-volume ratio, and cellular surface-to-volume ratio (grouped by gen￾eral cell types). Dashed lines in soma radius distribution plot indicate the effective MR radius for each general cell type (Glia RMRsoma =…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: (A) Distributions of intra-cellular and intra-branch residence times (grouped by general cell types) for two membrane permeabili￾ties (low and high). Residence time distributions were derived from surface￾to-volume ratio distributions using permeability values of 2 and…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Fig.8. These persistence maps are used for each species and each cell type to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_8.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Persistence maps for each cell types and all species together. The persistence map shows at what length scales a given topological feature, here the path length of connected branches, persists. It is computed by tracking the initiation points and termination points, wi…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Local topological distance between images (top right of ma￾trices) and global distance between images (bottom let) for rodent, human, hominid inter species comparison, and a comparison between rodent and hominid cell types intra-branch residence times, which span from …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

83 extracted references · 79 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Viewing the brain through the master hand of ram´ on y cajal

    Constantino Sotelo. Viewing the brain through the master hand of ram´ on y cajal. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 4(1):71–77, 2003

    2003

  2. [2]

    Neuronal cell-type classification: chal- lenges, opportunities and the path forward

    Hongkui Zeng and Joshua R Sanes. Neuronal cell-type classification: chal- lenges, opportunities and the path forward. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 18(9):530–546, 2017

    2017

  3. [3]

    Classification of electrophysiological and morphological types in mouse visual cortex

    Nathan W Gouwens, Staci A Sorensen, Jim Berg, Changkyu Lee, Tim Jarsky, Jonathan Ting, Susan M Sunkin, David Feng, Costas Anastassiou, Eliza Barkan, et al. Classification of electrophysiological and morphological types in mouse visual cortex. BioRxiv, page 368456, 2018

    2018

  4. [4]

    Het- erogeneity in the distribution and morphology of microglia in the normal adult mouse brain

    Linda J Lawson, Victor Hugh Perry, Pietro Dri, and Siamon Gordon. Het- erogeneity in the distribution and morphology of microglia in the normal adult mouse brain. Neuroscience, 39(1):151–170, 1990

    work page 1990

  5. [5]

    Microglial regional heterogeneity and its role in the brain

    Yun-Long Tan, Yi Yuan, and Li Tian. Microglial regional heterogeneity and its role in the brain. Molecular psychiatry, 25(2):351–367, 2020

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    Morpholog- ical diversity of single neurons in molecularly defined cell types

    Hanchuan Peng, Peng Xie, Lijuan Liu, Xiuli Kuang, Yimin Wang, Lei Qu, Hui Gong, Shengdian Jiang, Anan Li, Zongcai Ruan, et al. Morpholog- ical diversity of single neurons in molecularly defined cell types. Nature, 598(7879):174–181, 2021

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    Morphological and physiologi- cal characterization of pyramidal neuron subtypes in rat medial prefrontal cortex

    Karlijn I Van Aerde and Dirk Feldmeyer. Morphological and physiologi- cal characterization of pyramidal neuron subtypes in rat medial prefrontal cortex. Cerebral cortex, 25(3):788–805, 2015

    work page 2015

  8. [8]

    Von Bartheld, Jami Bahney, and Suzana Herculano-Houzel

    Christopher S. Von Bartheld, Jami Bahney, and Suzana Herculano-Houzel. The search for true numbers of neurons and glial cells in the human brain: A review of 150 years of cell counting. Journal of Comparative Neurology , 524:3865–3895, December 2016

    work page 2016

Show all 83 references
  1. [9]

    William Bondareff and Joseph J. Pysh. Distribution of the extracellular space during postnatal maturation of rat cerebral cortex. The Anatomical Record, 160:773–780, April 1968

    1968

  2. [10]

    Spocter, William D

    Muhammad A. Spocter, William D. Hopkins, Sarah K. Barks, Serena Bianchi, Abigail E. Hehmeyer, Sarah M. Anderson, Cheryl D. Stimpson, Archibald J. Fobbs, Patrick R. Hof, and Chet C. Sherwood. Neuropil dis- tribution in the cerebral cortex differs between humans and chimpanzees....

    2012

  3. [11]

    Boergens, Benedikt Staffler, Marcel Beining, Sahil Loomba, Philipp Hennig, Heiko Wissler, and Moritz Helmstaedter

    Alessandro Motta, Manuel Berning, Kevin M. Boergens, Benedikt Staffler, Marcel Beining, Sahil Loomba, Philipp Hennig, Heiko Wissler, and Moritz Helmstaedter. Dense connectomic reconstruction in layer 4 of the so- matosensory cortex. Science, 366:eaay3134, November 2019. 34

    2019

  4. [12]

    Pelvig, H

    D.P. Pelvig, H. Pakkenberg, A.K. Stark, and B. Pakkenberg. Neocortical glial cell numbers in human brains. Neurobiology of Aging , 29:1754–1762, November 2008

    2008

  5. [13]

    Neocortical Neuronal Loss in Patients with Multiple System Atrophy: A Stereological Study

    Lisette Salvesen, Kristian Winge, Tomasz Brudek, Tina Klitmøller Agan- der, Annemette Løkkegaard, and Bente Pakkenberg. Neocortical Neuronal Loss in Patients with Multiple System Atrophy: A Stereological Study. Cerebral Cortex, page bhv228, October 2015

    2015

  6. [14]

    Diffusion in Brain Extracellular Space

    Eva Sykov´ a and Charles Nicholson. Diffusion in Brain Extracellular Space. Physiological Reviews, 88:1277–1340, October 2008

    2008

  7. [15]

    Focal Cerebral Ischemia Preferentially Affects Neurons Distant from Their Neighboring Microvessels

    Takuma Mabuchi, Jacinta Lucero, Anne Feng, James A Koziol, and Gre- gory J Del Zoppo. Focal Cerebral Ischemia Preferentially Affects Neurons Distant from Their Neighboring Microvessels. Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow & Metabolism , 25:257–266, February 2005

    2005

  8. [16]

    Advanced microscopy techniques for quantitative anal- ysis in neuromorphology and neuropathology research: current status and requirements for the future

    Marijke AM Lemmens, Harry WM Steinbusch, Bart PF Rutten, and Christoph Schmitz. Advanced microscopy techniques for quantitative anal- ysis in neuromorphology and neuropathology research: current status and requirements for the future. Journal of Chemical Neuroanatomy, 40(3):19...

    2010

  9. [17]

    Volume electron microscopy for neu- ronal circuit reconstruction

    Kevin L Briggman and Davi D Bock. Volume electron microscopy for neu- ronal circuit reconstruction. Current opinion in neurobiology , 22(1):154– 161, 2012

    2012

  10. [18]

    Microglial morphometric analysis: so many options, so little consistency

    Jack Reddaway, Peter Eulalio Richardson, Ryan J Bevan, Jessica Stone- man, and Marco Palombo. Microglial morphometric analysis: so many options, so little consistency. Frontiers in neuroinformatics , 17:1211188, 2023

    2023

  11. [19]

    Neuronal morphology goes digital: a research hub for cellular and system neuroscience

    Ruchi Parekh and Giorgio A Ascoli. Neuronal morphology goes digital: a research hub for cellular and system neuroscience. Neuron, 77(6):1017– 1038, 2013

    2013

  12. [20]

    What are the basic concepts of temporal, contrast, and spatial resolution in cardiac ct? Journal of cardiovascular computed tomography, 3(6):403–408, 2009

    Eugene Lin and Adam Alessio. What are the basic concepts of temporal, contrast, and spatial resolution in cardiac ct? Journal of cardiovascular computed tomography, 3(6):403–408, 2009

    2009

  13. [21]

    Astroglia in dementia and alzheimer’s disease

    JJ Rodriguez, M Olabarria, A Chvatal, and A Verkhratsky. Astroglia in dementia and alzheimer’s disease. Cell Death & Differentiation , 16(3):378– 385, 2009

    2009

  14. [22]

    Morphological changes in nerve cells during normal aging

    Ennio Pannese. Morphological changes in nerve cells during normal aging. Brain Structure and Function , 216(2):85–89, 2011

    2011

  15. [23]

    Imag- ing brain microstructure with diffusion mri: practicality and applications

    Daniel C Alexander, Tim B Dyrby, Markus Nilsson, and Hui Zhang. Imag- ing brain microstructure with diffusion mri: practicality and applications. NMR in Biomedicine , 32(4):e3841, 2019. 35

    2019

  16. [24]

    Noddi: practical in vivo neurite orientation dispersion and density imaging of the human brain

    Hui Zhang, Torben Schneider, Claudia A Wheeler-Kingshott, and Daniel C Alexander. Noddi: practical in vivo neurite orientation dispersion and density imaging of the human brain. Neuroimage, 61(4):1000–1016, 2012

    2012

  17. [25]

    White matter char- acterization with diffusional kurtosis imaging

    Els Fieremans, Jens H Jensen, and Joseph A Helpern. White matter char- acterization with diffusional kurtosis imaging. Neuroimage, 58(1):177–188, 2011

    2011

  18. [26]

    Orientationally invari- ant indices of axon diameter and density from diffusion mri

    Daniel C Alexander, Penny L Hubbard, Matt G Hall, Elizabeth A Moore, Maurice Ptito, Geoff JM Parker, and Tim B Dyrby. Orientationally invari- ant indices of axon diameter and density from diffusion mri. Neuroimage, 52(4):1374–1389, 2010

    2010

  19. [27]

    Noninvasive quantification of axon radii using diffusion mri

    Jelle Veraart, Daniel Nunes, Umesh Rudrapatna, Els Fieremans, Derek K Jones, Dmitry S Novikov, and Noam Shemesh. Noninvasive quantification of axon radii using diffusion mri. elife, 9:e49855, 2020

    2020

  20. [28]

    Modeling dendrite density from magnetic resonance diffusion measurements

    Sune N Jespersen, Christopher D Kroenke, Leif Østergaard, Joseph JH Ackerman, and Dmitriy A Yablonskiy. Modeling dendrite density from magnetic resonance diffusion measurements. Neuroimage, 34(4):1473–1486, 2007

    2007

  21. [29]

    Komlosh, F

    M.E. Komlosh, F. Horkay, R.Z. Freidlin, U. Nevo, Y. Assaf, and P.J. Basser. Detection of microscopic anisotropy in gray matter and in a novel tissue phantom using double Pulsed Gradient Spin Echo MR.Journal of Magnetic Resonance, 189:38–45, November 2007

    2007

  22. [30]

    Basser, and Yoram Cohen

    Noam Shemesh, Evren ¨Ozarslan, Peter J. Basser, and Yoram Cohen. Accurate noninvasive measurement of cell size and compartment shape anisotropy in yeast cells using double-pulsed field gradient MR. NMR in Biomedicine, 25:236–246, February 2012

    2012

  23. [31]

    Trong-Kha Truong, Arnaud Guidon, and Allen W. Song. Cortical Depth Dependence of the Diffusion Anisotropy in the Human Cortical Gray Mat- ter In Vivo. PLoS ONE, 9:e91424, March 2014

    2014

  24. [32]

    Sandi: a compartment-based model for non-invasive apparent soma and neurite imaging by diffusion mri

    Marco Palombo, Andrada Ianus, Michele Guerreri, Daniel Nunes, Daniel C Alexander, Noam Shemesh, and Hui Zhang. Sandi: a compartment-based model for non-invasive apparent soma and neurite imaging by diffusion mri. Neuroimage, 215:116835, 2020

    2020

  25. [33]

    Neurite exchange imaging (nexi): A minimal model of diffusion in gray matter with inter-compartment water exchange

    Ileana O Jelescu, Alexandre de Skowronski, Fran¸ coise Geffroy, Marco Palombo, and Dmitry S Novikov. Neurite exchange imaging (nexi): A minimal model of diffusion in gray matter with inter-compartment water exchange. NeuroImage, 256:119277, 2022

    2022

  26. [34]

    Diffusion time dependence, power-law scaling, and exchange in gray matter

    Jonas L Olesen, Leif Østergaard, Noam Shemesh, and Sune N Jespersen. Diffusion time dependence, power-law scaling, and exchange in gray matter. NeuroImage, 251:118976, 2022. 36

    2022

  27. [35]

    Imaging laminar structures in the gray matter with diffusion mri

    Yaniv Assaf. Imaging laminar structures in the gray matter with diffusion mri. Neuroimage, 197:677–688, 2019

    2019

  28. [36]

    Design and validation of diffusion mri models of white matter

    Ileana O Jelescu and Matthew D Budde. Design and validation of diffusion mri models of white matter. Frontiers in physics, 5:61, 2017

    2017

  29. [37]

    Quantifying brain microstructure with diffusion mri: Theory and parame- ter estimation

    Dmitry S Novikov, Els Fieremans, Sune N Jespersen, and Valerij G Kiselev. Quantifying brain microstructure with diffusion mri: Theory and parame- ter estimation. NMR in Biomedicine , 32(4):e3998, 2019

    2019

  30. [38]

    Challenges for biophysical modeling of microstructure

    Ileana O Jelescu, Marco Palombo, Francesca Bagnato, and Kurt G Schilling. Challenges for biophysical modeling of microstructure. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 344:108861, 2020

    2020

  31. [39]

    Neuromorpho

    Giorgio A Ascoli, Duncan E Donohue, and Maryam Halavi. Neuromorpho. org: a central resource for neuronal morphologies. Journal of Neuroscience, 27(35):9247–9251, 2007

    2007

  32. [40]

    The trees toolbox—probing the basis of axonal and dendritic branching, 2011

    Hermann Cuntz, Friedrich Forstner, Alexander Borst, and Michael H¨ ausser. The trees toolbox—probing the basis of axonal and dendritic branching, 2011

    2011

  33. [41]

    Blender - a 3D modelling and rendering pack- age

    Blender Online Community. Blender - a 3D modelling and rendering pack- age. Blender Foundation, Stichting Blender Foundation, Amsterdam, 2018

    2018

  34. [42]

    Retrieved July 15, 2024

    (https://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/5355-toolbox- graph), MATLAB Central File Exchange. Retrieved July 15, 2024

    2024

  35. [43]

    New paradigm to assess brain cell mor- phology by diffusion-weighted mr spectroscopy in vivo

    Marco Palombo, Cl´ emence Ligneul, Chlo´ e Najac, Juliette Le Douce, Julien Flament, Carole Escartin, Philippe Hantraye, Emmanuel Brouillet, Gilles Bonvento, and Julien Valette. New paradigm to assess brain cell mor- phology by diffusion-weighted mr spectroscopy in vivo. Proce...

    2016

  36. [44]

    Map- ping complex cell morphology in the grey matter with double diffusion encoding mr: A simulation study

    Andrada Ianus, Daniel C Alexander, Hui Zhang, and Marco Palombo. Map- ping complex cell morphology in the grey matter with double diffusion encoding mr: A simulation study. Neuroimage, 241:118424, 2021

    2021

  37. [45]

    Using diffusion anisotropy to characterize neuronal mor- phology in gray matter: the orientation distribution of axons and dendrites in the neuromorpho

    Mikkel B Hansen, Sune N Jespersen, Lindsey A Leigland, and Christo- pher D Kroenke. Using diffusion anisotropy to characterize neuronal mor- phology in gray matter: the orientation distribution of axons and dendrites in the neuromorpho. org database. Frontiers in integrative n...

    2013

  38. [46]

    Stick power law scaling in neurons withstands realistic curvature and branching

    Jonas Lynge Olesen and Sune Nørhøj Jespersen. Stick power law scaling in neurons withstands realistic curvature and branching. In International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine Annual Meeting , 2020. 37

    2020

  39. [47]

    The importance of axonal undulation in diffusion mr measurements: a monte carlo simulation study

    Markus Nilsson, Jimmy L¨ att, Freddy St ˚ ahlberg, Danielle van Westen, and H ˚ akan Hagsl¨ att. The importance of axonal undulation in diffusion mr measurements: a monte carlo simulation study. NMR in Biomedicine , 25(5):795–805, 2012

    2012

  40. [48]

    Time-dependent diffusion in undulating thin fibers: Impact on axon diameter estimation

    Jan Brabec, Samo Lasiˇ c, and Markus Nilsson. Time-dependent diffusion in undulating thin fibers: Impact on axon diameter estimation. NMR in Biomedicine, 33(3):e4187, 2020

    2020

  41. [49]

    Surface-to-volume ratio with oscillating gradients

    Dmitry S Novikov and Valerij G Kiselev. Surface-to-volume ratio with oscillating gradients. Journal of magnetic resonance, 210(1):141–145, 2011

    2011

  42. [50]

    A time-dependent diffusion mri signature of axon caliber variations and beading

    Hong-Hsi Lee, Antonios Papaioannou, Sung-Lyoung Kim, Dmitry S Novikov, and Els Fieremans. A time-dependent diffusion mri signature of axon caliber variations and beading. Communications biology, 3(1):354, 2020

    2020

  43. [51]

    Revealing mesoscopic structural universality with diffusion

    Dmitry S Novikov, Jens H Jensen, Joseph A Helpern, and Els Fieremans. Revealing mesoscopic structural universality with diffusion. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 111(14):5088–5093, 2014

    2014

  44. [52]

    A generative model of realistic brain cells with application to numerical simulation of the diffusion-weighted mr signal

    Marco Palombo, Daniel C Alexander, and Hui Zhang. A generative model of realistic brain cells with application to numerical simulation of the diffusion-weighted mr signal. NeuroImage, 188:391–402, 2019

    2019

  45. [53]

    Machine learning based compartment models with permeability for white matter microstructure imaging

    Gemma L Nedjati-Gilani, Torben Schneider, Matt G Hall, Niamh Cawley, Ioana Hill, Olga Ciccarelli, Ivana Drobnjak, Claudia AM Gandini Wheeler- Kingshott, and Daniel C Alexander. Machine learning based compartment models with permeability for white matter microstructure imaging....

    2017

  46. [54]

    Monte carlo study of a two-compartment exchange model of diffusion.NMR in Biomedicine, 23(7):711–724, 2010

    Els Fieremans, Dmitry S Novikov, Jens H Jensen, and Joseph A Helpern. Monte carlo study of a two-compartment exchange model of diffusion.NMR in Biomedicine, 23(7):711–724, 2010

    2010

  47. [55]

    A univocal def- inition of the neuronal soma morphology using gaussian mixture models

    Sergio Luengo-Sanchez, Concha Bielza, Ruth Benavides-Piccione, Isabel Fernaud-Espinosa, Javier DeFelipe, and Pedro Larra˜ naga. A univocal def- inition of the neuronal soma morphology using gaussian mixture models. Frontiers in neuroanatomy, 9:137, 2015

    2015

  48. [56]

    Neuromorphovis: a collaborative framework for analysis and visualization of neuronal mor- phology skeletons reconstructed from microscopy stacks

    Marwan Abdellah, Juan Hernando, Stefan Eilemann, Samuel Lapere, Nico- las Antille, Henry Markram, and Felix Sch¨ urmann. Neuromorphovis: a collaborative framework for analysis and visualization of neuronal mor- phology skeletons reconstructed from microscopy stacks. Bioinforma...

    2018

  49. [57]

    Ultraliser: a framework for 38 creating multiscale, high-fidelity and geometrically realistic 3d models for in silico neuroscience

    Marwan Abdellah, Juan Jos´ e Garc ´ ıa Cantero, Nadir Rom´ an Guerrero, Alessandro Foni, Jay S Coggan, Corrado Cal ` ı, Marco Agus, Eleftherios Zisis, Daniel Keller, Markus Hadwiger, et al. Ultraliser: a framework for 38 creating multiscale, high-fidelity and geometrically rea...

    2023

  50. [58]

    Rotationally-invariant mapping of scalar and orientational metrics of neu- ronal microstructure with diffusion mri

    Dmitry S Novikov, Jelle Veraart, Ileana O Jelescu, and Els Fieremans. Rotationally-invariant mapping of scalar and orientational metrics of neu- ronal microstructure with diffusion mri. NeuroImage, 174:518–538, 2018

    2018

  51. [59]

    Directional statistics

    Kanti V Mardia and Peter E Jupp. Directional statistics. John Wiley & Sons, 2009

    2009

  52. [60]

    Hanebeck, Reinhold Haeb-Umbach, and Roland Y

    Gerhard Kurz, Igor Gilitschenski, Florian Pfaff, Lukas Drude, Uwe D. Hanebeck, Reinhold Haeb-Umbach, and Roland Y. Siegwart. Directional statistics and filtering using libDirectional. Journal of Statistical Software , 89(4):1–31, 2019

    2019

  53. [61]

    A topological representation of branching neuronal morphologies

    Lida Kanari, Pawe l D lotko, Martina Scolamiero, Ran Levi, Julian Shill- cock, Kathryn Hess, and Henry Markram. A topological representation of branching neuronal morphologies. Neuroinformatics, 16:3–13, 2018

    2018

  54. [62]

    Objective morphological classification of neocortical pyra- midal cells

    Lida Kanari, Srikanth Ramaswamy, Ying Shi, Sebastien Morand, Julie Meystre, Rodrigo Perin, Marwan Abdellah, Yun Wang, Kathryn Hess, and Henry Markram. Objective morphological classification of neocortical pyra- midal cells. Cerebral Cortex, 29(4):1719–1735, 2019

    2019

  55. [63]

    Magnetic resonance measurements of cellular and sub-cellular membrane structures in live and fixed neural tissue

    Nathan H Williamson, Rea Ravin, Dan Benjamini, Hellmut Merkle, Melanie Falgairolle, Michael James O’Donovan, Dvir Blivis, Dave Ide, Teddy X Cai, Nima S Ghorashi, Ruiliang Bai, and Peter J Basser. Magnetic resonance measurements of cellular and sub-cellular membrane structures ...

    2019

  56. [64]

    Cai, Nathan H

    Teddy X. Cai, Nathan H. Williamson, Rea Ravin, and Peter J. Basser. Disentangling the Effects of Restriction and Exchange With Diffusion Ex- change Spectroscopy. Frontiers in Physics, 10:805793, March 2022

    2022

  57. [65]

    Yang, James E

    Donghan M. Yang, James E. Huettner, G. Larry Bretthorst, Jeffrey J. Neil, Joel R. Garbow, and Joseph J.H. Ackerman. Intracellular water preexchange lifetime in neurons and astrocytes. Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, 79:1616–1627, March 2018

    2018

  58. [66]

    Investigating exchange, structural disorder, and restriction in gray matter via water and metabolites diffusivity and kurtosis time-dependence

    Elo ¨ ıse Mougel, Julien Valette, and Marco Palombo. Investigating exchange, structural disorder, and restriction in gray matter via water and metabolites diffusivity and kurtosis time-dependence. Imaging Neuroscience, 2:1–14, 04 2024

    2024

  59. [67]

    Se- bastian Seung, William Gray Roncal, Joshua Tzvi Vogelstein, Randal 39 Burns, Daniel Lewis Sussman, Carey Eldin Priebe, Hanspeter Pfister, and Jeff William Lichtman

    Narayanan Kasthuri, Kenneth Jeffrey Hayworth, Daniel Raimund Berger, Richard Lee Schalek, Jos´ e Angel Conchello, Seymour Knowles-Barley, Dongil Lee, Amelio V´ azquez-Reina, Verena Kaynig, Thouis Raymond Jones, Mike Roberts, Josh Lyskowski Morgan, Juan Carlos Tapia, H. Se- bas...

    2015

  60. [68]

    Marco Palombo, Clemence Ligneul, and Julien Valette. Modeling dif- fusion of intracellular metabolites in the mouse brain up to very high diffusion-weighting: diffusion in long fibers (almost) accounts for non- monoexponential attenuation. Magnetic resonance in medicine, 77(1)...

    2017

  61. [69]

    The role of dendritic spines in water exchange mea- surements with diffusion mri: Double diffusion encoding and free-waveform mri

    Arthur Chakwizira, Kadir S ¸im¸ sek, Filip Szczepankiewicz, Marco Palombo, and Markus Nilsson. The role of dendritic spines in water exchange mea- surements with diffusion mri: Double diffusion encoding and free-waveform mri. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.21537 , 2025

    2025 arXiv

  62. [70]

    The role of dendritic spines in water exchange measurements with diffu- sion mri: Time-dependent single diffusion encoding mri

    Kadir S ¸im¸ sek, Arthur Chakwizira, Markus Nilsson, and Marco Palombo. The role of dendritic spines in water exchange measurements with diffu- sion mri: Time-dependent single diffusion encoding mri. arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.18229, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Diffusion MRI with pulsed and free gradient waveforms: Effects of restricted diffusion and ex- change

    Arthur Chakwizira, Carl-Fredrik Westin, Jan Brabec, Samo Lasiˇ c, Linda Knutsson, Filip Szczepankiewicz, and Markus Nilsson. Diffusion MRI with pulsed and free gradient waveforms: Effects of restricted diffusion and ex- change. NMR in Biomedicine , 36:e4827, January 2023

    2023

  64. [72]

    Principles of nuclear magnetic resonance microscopy

    Paul T Callaghan. Principles of nuclear magnetic resonance microscopy . Clarendon press, 1993

    1993

  65. [73]

    Influence of the size and curvedness of neural pro- jections on the orientationally averaged diffusion mr signal

    Evren ¨Ozarslan, Cem Yolcu, Magnus Herberthson, Hans Knutsson, and Carl-Fredrik Westin. Influence of the size and curvedness of neural pro- jections on the orientationally averaged diffusion mr signal. Frontiers in physics, 6:17, 2018

    2018

  66. [74]

    Resolution limit of cylinder diameter estimation by dif- fusion mri: The impact of gradient waveform and orientation dispersion

    Markus Nilsson, Samo Lasiˇ c, Ivana Drobnjak, Daniel Topgaard, and Carl- Fredrik Westin. Resolution limit of cylinder diameter estimation by dif- fusion mri: The impact of gradient waveform and orientation dispersion. NMR in Biomedicine , 30(7):e3711, 2017

    2017

  67. [75]

    Anderson, Leonard E

    Nian Wang, Jieying Zhang, Gary Cofer, Yi Qi, Robert J. Anderson, Leonard E. White, and G. Allan Johnson. Neurite orientation dispersion and density imaging of mouse brain microstructure. Brain Structure and Function, 224:1797–1813, 2019

    2019

  68. [76]

    White, Yi Qi, Gary Cofer, and G

    Nian Wang, Leonard E. White, Yi Qi, Gary Cofer, and G. Allan Johnson. Cytoarchitecture of the mouse brain by high resolution diffusion magnetic resonance imaging. NeuroImage, 216:116876, 2020

    2020

  69. [77]

    Allan Johnson, Yuqi Tian, David G

    G. Allan Johnson, Yuqi Tian, David G. Ashbrook, Gary P. Cofer, James J. Cook, James C. Gee, Adam Hall, Kathryn Hornburg, Catherine C. Kac- zorowski, Yi Qi, Fang-Cheng Yeh, Nian Wang, Leonard E. White, and 40 Robert W. Williams. Merged magnetic resonance and light sheet mi- cro...

    2023

  70. [78]

    Tsai, Peter B

    Nian Wang, Surendra Maharjan, Andy P. Tsai, Peter B. Lin, Yi Qi, Abigail Wallace, Megan Jewett, Fang Liu, Gary E. Landreth, and Adrian L. Oblak. Integrating multimodality magnetic resonance imaging to the allen mouse brain common coordinate framework. NMR in Biomedicine , 36(5...

    2023

  71. [79]

    White, G

    Xinyue Han, Surendra Maharjan, Jie Chen, Yi Zhao, Yi Qi, Leonard E. White, G. Allan Johnson, and Nian Wang. High-resolution diffusion mag- netic resonance imaging and spatial-transcriptomic in developing mouse brain. NeuroImage, 297:120734, 2024

    2024

  72. [80]

    Mapping microglia and astrocyte activation in vivo using diffusion mri

    Raquel Garcia-Hernandez, Antonio Cerdan Cerda, Alejandro Trouve Carpena, Mark Drakesmith, Kristin Koller, Derek K Jones, Santiago Canals, and Silvia De Santis. Mapping microglia and astrocyte activation in vivo using diffusion mri. Science Advances, 8(21):eabq2923, 2022

    2022

  73. [81]

    Turner, Thomas Macrina, J

    Nicholas L. Turner, Thomas Macrina, J. Alexander Bae, Runzhe Yang, Alyssa M. Wilson, Casey Schneider-Mizell, Kisuk Lee, Ran Lu, Jingpeng Wu, Agnes L. Bodor, Adam A. Bleckert, Derrick Brittain, Emmanouil Froudarakis, Sven Dorkenwald, Forrest Collman, Nico Kemnitz, Dodam Ih, Wil...

    2022

  74. [82]

    Berger, Art Pope, Yuelong Wu, Tim Blakely, Richard L

    Alexander Shapson-Coe, Micha l Januszewski, Daniel R. Berger, Art Pope, Yuelong Wu, Tim Blakely, Richard L. Schalek, Peter H. Li, Shuohong Wang, Jeremy Maitin-Shepard, Neha Karlupia, Sven Dorkenwald, Evelina Sjostedt, Laramie Leavitt, Dongil Lee, Jakob Troidl, Forrest Collman,...

    2024

  75. [83]

    Information encoded in volumes and areas of dendritic spines is nearly maximal across mammalian brains

    Jan Karbowski and Paulina Urban. Information encoded in volumes and areas of dendritic spines is nearly maximal across mammalian brains. Sci- entific Reports, 13(1):22207, 2023. 41

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.