Again, I strongly disagree with your statements and conclusions. You still fail to understand the importance of these works in relation to current stereology practice. Instead, you seem rather obsessed with parsing words. <Irrelevant demands redacted>

So you disagree. Fine. How do you explain the following huge mistakes.

Wicksell was a Swedish physician interested in quantification of thyroid globules. He realized that counting the number of intersections per unit (Na) on random 2-D planes through a matrix containing 3-D objects provides a biased estimate of the number of 3-D objects per unit volume (Nv). The sources of this bias, which Wicksell referred to as the Corpuscle Problem, are the object’s size, shape, and orientation within the matrix. Though this relationship had been known for centuries, Wicksell was one of the first to make a thorough analysis. For more information on this topic, see my book published by the <removed>

- Wicksell was not a physician.
- Wicksell did not assist in the study of the thyroid

Wicksell was not interested in the number of profiles as representing the number of objects. A rather cursory read of the article would have told you this.

What I suspect is that you have not read ANY of the relevant material. Nothing. From the outset Wicksell approach the problem from a 3-dimensional perspective.

You claim that a bias, which Wicksell did not consider, or address, was named the corpuscle problem. You might want to take the time to learn what the corpuscle problem is all about. It’s not that complicated.

Here is a hint. In the 1925 paper Wicksell only considers balls. Thus the shape and orientation are moot claims on your part. As I have stated before Wicksell was interested in determining the number of balls regardless of the size distribution.

Please take the time to read Wicksell’s paper. The math is reasonable and interesting. You’ll learn who Wicksell was and what organ he investigated for a researcher at the university.

### Like this:

Like Loading...

*Related*

This entry was posted on April 9, 2012 at 6:15 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

April 12, 2012 at 9:13 am |

Again, my confused, pedantic friend who prefers to remain anonymous, you miss the point. Of course Wicksell did not publish Na ≠ Nv. However, his work does provide a theoretical foundation for understanding why simply counting the number of 2-D cell profiles per unit area on sections through tissue might lead to an assumption and model-based (biased) estimate of the number of 3-D cells per unit volume of tissue, i.e., Na ≠ Nv. The sources of bias related to the Corpuscle Problem include size, shape, and orientation of the biological objects relative to the direction of sectioning.