ArticleNanoscale advances2025
Automated morphological classification and quantification of cerebrospinal fluid extracellular vesicles
Article in Nanoscale advances, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Morphology of extracellular vesicles (EVs) from cerebrospinal fluid is an important property that could uncover brain-related conditions. However, native morphology could get distorted during imaging, such as with atomic force microscopy (AFM) in air, which enables relatively simple visualisation and automated morphology assessment. Therefore, we compared 24 different preparation methods for the same sample of EVs according to the resulting size, height, aspect ratio and shape distributions obtained from the AFM images. We defined 5 different shape categories (round, flat, concave, single-lobed, and multilobed) and neglected other features that did not fit in either category and were considered artefacts. Artefacts affected the morphometric data (size, height, aspect ratio ranges and distributions), so their neglection was necessary for accurate morphometry. As this required a cumbersome and time-consuming manual search through all AFM images, we developed a computer program that facilitates the individual observation of each particle, enables manual shape identification and exports the resulting size and shape distribution from each AFM image. Since manual EV categorisation in the program still required significant time and proved to be quite subjective, we also employed machine learning for vesicle and shape recognition. A convolution neural network model was trained on a dataset of particles, for which 4 independent researchers provided consistent shape categorisations (
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.