Filtern
Dokumenttyp
- Zeitschriftenartikel (5)
- Buchkapitel (1)
Schlagworte
- ISO 6892-1 (2)
- Archaeometry (1)
- Biology (1)
- Comparability (1)
- Corrosion (1)
- Cultural heritage (1)
- Data (1)
- Electrochemical noise (1)
- Fluorescence (1)
- Imaging (1)
Organisationseinheit der BAM
A modern day light microscope has evolved from a tool devoted to making primarily empirical observations to what is now a sophisticated, quantitative device that is an integral part of both physical and life science research. Nowadays, microscopes are found in nearly every experimental laboratory. However, despite their prevalent use in capturing and quantifying scientific phenomena, neither a thorough understanding of the principles underlying quantitative imaging techniques nor appropriate knowledge of how to calibrate, operate and maintain microscopes can be taken for granted. This is clearly demonstrated by the well-documented and widespread difficulties that are routinely encountered in evaluating acquired data and reproducing scientific experiments. Indeed, studies have shown that more than 70% of researchers have tried and failed to repeat another scientist’s experiments, while more than half have even failed to reproduce their own experiments1. One factor behind the reproducibility crisis of experiments published in scientific journals is the frequent underreporting of imaging methods caused by a lack of awareness and/or a lack of knowledge of the applied technique2,3. Whereas quality control procedures for some methods used in biomedical research, such as genomics (e.g., DNA sequencing, RNA-seq) or cytometry, have been introduced (e.g. ENCODE4), this issue has not been tackled for optical microscopy instrumentation and images. Although many calibration standards and protocols have been published, there is a lack of awareness and agreement on common Standards and guidelines for quality assessment and reproducibility5.
In April 2020, the QUality Assessment and REProducibility for instruments and images in Light Microscopy (QUAREP-LiMi) initiative6 was formed. This initiative comprises imaging scientists from academia and industry who share a common interest in achieving a better understanding of the performance and limitations of microscopes and improved quality control (QC) in light microscopy. The ultimate goal of the QUAREP-LiMi initiative is to establish a set of common QC standards, guidelines, metadata models7,8, and tools9,10, including detailed protocols, with the ultimate aim of improving reproducible advances in scientific research.
This White Paper 1) summarizes the major obstacles identified in the field that motivated the launch of the QUAREP-LiMi initiative; 2) identifies the urgent need to address these obstacles in a grassroots manner, through a community of Stakeholders including, researchers, imaging scientists11, bioimage analysts, bioimage informatics developers, corporate partners, Funding agencies, standards organizations, scientific publishers, and observers of such; 3) outlines the current actions of the QUAREPLiMi initiative, and 4) proposes future steps that can be taken to improve the dissemination and acceptance of the proposed guidelines to manage QC.
To summarize, the principal goal of the QUAREP-LiMi initiative is to improve the overall quality and reproducibility of light microscope image data by introducing broadly accepted standard practices and accurately captured image data metrics.
Sixteen laboratories have performed electrochemical noise (EN) measurements based on two systems. The first uses a series of dummy cells consisting of a 'star' arrangement of resistors in order to validate the EN measurement equipment and determine its baseline noise performance, while the second system, based on a previous round-robin in the literature, examines the corrosion of aluminium in three environments. All participants used the same measurement protocol and the data reporting and analysis were performed with automatic procedures to avoid errors. The measurement instruments used in the various laboratories include commercial general-purpose potentiostats and custom-built EN systems. The measurements on dummy cells have demonstrated that few systems are capable of achieving instrument noise levels comparable to the thermal noise of the resistors, because of its low level. However, it is of greater concern that some of the instruments exhibited significant artefacts in the measured data, mostly because of the absence of anti-aliasing filters in the equipment or because the way it is used. The measurements on the aluminium samples involve a much higher source noise level during pitting corrosion, and most (though not all) instruments were able to make reliable measurements. However, during passivation, the low level of noise could be measured by very few systems. The round-robin testing has clearly shown that improvements are necessary in the choice of EN measurement equipment and settings and in the way to validate EN data measured. The results emphasise the need to validate measurement systems by using dummy cells and the need to check systematically that the noise of the electrochemical cell to be measured is significantly higher than the instrument noise measured with dummy cells of similar impedance.
This paper reports the outcome of an interdisciplinary team’s application of multispectral imaging techniques and material analysis to a music fragment from the first decades of the fifteenth century: Atri, Archivio Capitolare, Museo della Basilica Cattedrale, Biblioteca del Capitolo della Cattedrale, Frammento 17. This important parchment leaf has rarely been investigated since its discovery 45 years ago. Thanks to the applied techniques and methods (such as the evaluation of the data using the fingerprint model), it is now possible to discuss new evidence supporting conclusions regarding the fragment’s origin and afterlife.
Das Kupferstichkabinett der Hamburger Kunsthalle besitzt seit seiner Gründung vier Zeichnungen von Leonardo da Vinci (1452–1519). Sie sind Teil eines umfangreichen Legats des Hamburger Kunsthändlers Georg Ernst Harzen, das der Stadt Hamburg für die 1869 eröffnete Kunsthalle als Besitz übereignet wurde. Die Zeichnungen gelten aufgrund ihrer Provenienzen und stilistischen Verankerung im Werk Leonardos als gesichert. Weiterführende materialtechnologische Untersuchungen wurden nun erstmals anlässlich der Ausstellung »Leonardo da Vinci – Die Zeichnungen im Hamburger Kupferstichkabinett« durchgeführt.
The authors, Li et al., of the paper entitled “Analysis on the Issues in ISO 6892-1 and
TENSTAND WP4 Report Based on Data to Confirm Tests by 21 Laboratories” (J. Test. Eval.
DOI: 10.1520/JTE20150479 (online only)) have expressed views that the authors of this
rebuttal believe to be based on fundamental misunderstandings and misinterpretations of
the tensile testing standard ISO 6892-1:2009, ISO 6892-1:2016, and its former versions, thus
leading to erroneous conclusions. This refutation is intended to clarify the understanding of
ISO 6892-1 and to address the misunderstandings and the misinterpretations of the authors of the paper. The present standard ISO 6892-1:2016 has a long history dating back to the 1970s. At that time, the tensile testing procedure was standardized on the National and
International scale in parallel. To understand the present standard, the knowledge of the
history helps to understand the background of details of the testing procedure implemented today. The history of the tensile testing standard has been discussed extensively during the
annual international standardization meeting of ISO committee TC 164 SC1 for the last few years, at which some of the authors of the Li et al. paper attended. The authors continue to disagree with facts that were agreed by the consortium of the European
research project TENSTAND and by the present international experts involved in ISO TC 164 SC1. It appears that the principal objective of the authors regarding their present publication was to increase the testing speed during tensile testing. However, the international standardization community has previously declined similar proposals by some of the authors. Many arguments
presented by Li et al. were thus refuted. The conclusions of their paper are misleading and the international standardization community for tensile testing refused to revise the present standard, ISO 6892-1 (2016), according the authors’ proposals.
The authors, Li et al., of the paper entitled “Analysis on the Issues in ISO 6892-1 and TENSTAND WP4 Report Based on Data to Confirm Tests by 21 Laboratories” (J. Test. Eval.
DOI: 10.1520/JTE20150479 (online only)) have expressed views that the authors of this rebuttal believe to be based on fundamental misunderstandings and misinterpretations of the tensile testing standard ISO 6892-1:2009, ISO 6892-1:2016, and its former versions, thus leading to erroneous conclusions. This refutation is intended to clarify the understanding of ISO 6892-1 and to address the misunderstandings and the misinterpretations of the authors of the paper. The present standard ISO 6892-1:2016 has a long history dating back to the 1970s. At that time, the tensile testing procedure was standardized on the National and International scale in parallel. To understand the present standard, the knowledge of the history helps to understand the background of details of the testing procedure implemented today. The history of the tensile testing standard has been discussed extensively during the annual international standardization meeting of ISO committee TC 164 SC1 for the last few years, at which some of the authors of the Li et al. paper attended. The authors continue to disagree with facts that were agreed by the consortium of the European research project TENSTAND and by the present international experts involved in ISO TC 164 SC1. It appears that the principal objective of the authors regarding their present publication was to increase the testing speed during tensile testing. However, the international standardization community has previously declined similar proposals by some of the authors. Many Arguments presented by Li et al. were thus refuted. The conclusions of their paper are misleading and the international standardization community for tensile testing refused to revise the present standard, ISO 6892-1 (2016), according the authors’ proposals.