Review



cell immunostaining confocal microscope images  (Human Protein Atlas)

 
  • Logo
  • About
  • News
  • Press Release
  • Team
  • Advisors
  • Partners
  • Contact
  • Bioz Stars
  • Bioz vStars
    • 90
      Buy from Supplier

    Structured Review

    Human Protein Atlas cell immunostaining confocal microscope images
    Images forged by generative models are hard to distinguish We conducted a human-opinion study. This figure shows the normalized histogram of votes per image type. The image used for evaluation consists of five categories: (1) natural images, (2) scanning micrographs of nano materials (nano-micrograph), (3) cell <t>immunostaining</t> images, (4) immunohistochemistry (IHC) images, and (5) histopathological images. In total, 800 images are involved, and each image is rated by at least ten medical experts. The voting scale was between 1 to 4 corresponding to the following: 1 – definitely fake, 2 – probably fake, 3 – probably real, and 4 – definitely real. Mean scores are shown as red dots.
    Cell Immunostaining Confocal Microscope Images, supplied by Human Protein Atlas, 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/product/cell+immunostaining+confocal+microscope+images/cell+immunostaining+confocal+microscope+images/pmc09278510-127-32-39
    Average 90 stars, based on 1 article reviews
    cell immunostaining confocal microscope images - by Bioz Stars, 2026-10
    90/100 stars

    Images

    1) Product Images from "AI-enabled image fraud in scientific publications"

    Article Title: AI-enabled image fraud in scientific publications

    Journal: Patterns

    doi: 10.1016/j.patter.2022.100511

    Images forged by generative models are hard to distinguish We conducted a human-opinion study. This figure shows the normalized histogram of votes per image type. The image used for evaluation consists of five categories: (1) natural images, (2) scanning micrographs of nano materials (nano-micrograph), (3) cell immunostaining images, (4) immunohistochemistry (IHC) images, and (5) histopathological images. In total, 800 images are involved, and each image is rated by at least ten medical experts. The voting scale was between 1 to 4 corresponding to the following: 1 – definitely fake, 2 – probably fake, 3 – probably real, and 4 – definitely real. Mean scores are shown as red dots.
    Figure Legend Snippet: Images forged by generative models are hard to distinguish We conducted a human-opinion study. This figure shows the normalized histogram of votes per image type. The image used for evaluation consists of five categories: (1) natural images, (2) scanning micrographs of nano materials (nano-micrograph), (3) cell immunostaining images, (4) immunohistochemistry (IHC) images, and (5) histopathological images. In total, 800 images are involved, and each image is rated by at least ten medical experts. The voting scale was between 1 to 4 corresponding to the following: 1 – definitely fake, 2 – probably fake, 3 – probably real, and 4 – definitely real. Mean scores are shown as red dots.

    Techniques Used: Immunostaining, Immunohistochemistry

    Related Articles

    Immunostaining:

    Article Title: AI-enabled image fraud in scientific publications
    Article Snippet: .. The images used for evaluation may be classified into five categories: (1) natural images, such as natural sceneries, architectures, flora, and fauna; (2) scanning micrographs of nano materials collected from Internet; (3) cell immunostaining confocal microscope images from the Human Protein Atlas dataset; (4) immunohistochemistry (IHC) images collected from clinical and the Human Protein Atlas datasets; and (5) histopathological images from the breast cancer histopathological dataset (BreCaHAD). ..

    Microscopy:

    Article Title: AI-enabled image fraud in scientific publications
    Article Snippet: .. The images used for evaluation may be classified into five categories: (1) natural images, such as natural sceneries, architectures, flora, and fauna; (2) scanning micrographs of nano materials collected from Internet; (3) cell immunostaining confocal microscope images from the Human Protein Atlas dataset; (4) immunohistochemistry (IHC) images collected from clinical and the Human Protein Atlas datasets; and (5) histopathological images from the breast cancer histopathological dataset (BreCaHAD). ..

    Immunohistochemistry:

    Article Title: AI-enabled image fraud in scientific publications
    Article Snippet: .. The images used for evaluation may be classified into five categories: (1) natural images, such as natural sceneries, architectures, flora, and fauna; (2) scanning micrographs of nano materials collected from Internet; (3) cell immunostaining confocal microscope images from the Human Protein Atlas dataset; (4) immunohistochemistry (IHC) images collected from clinical and the Human Protein Atlas datasets; and (5) histopathological images from the breast cancer histopathological dataset (BreCaHAD). ..



    Similar Products

    cell immunostaining confocal microscope images  (Human Protein Atlas)
    90
    Human Protein Atlas cell immunostaining confocal microscope images
    Images forged by generative models are hard to distinguish We conducted a human-opinion study. This figure shows the normalized histogram of votes per image type. The image used for evaluation consists of five categories: (1) natural images, (2) scanning micrographs of nano materials (nano-micrograph), (3) cell <t>immunostaining</t> images, (4) immunohistochemistry (IHC) images, and (5) histopathological images. In total, 800 images are involved, and each image is rated by at least ten medical experts. The voting scale was between 1 to 4 corresponding to the following: 1 – definitely fake, 2 – probably fake, 3 – probably real, and 4 – definitely real. Mean scores are shown as red dots.
    Cell Immunostaining Confocal Microscope Images, supplied by Human Protein Atlas, 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/product/cell+immunostaining+confocal+microscope+images/cell+immunostaining+confocal+microscope+images/pmc09278510-127-32-39
    Average 90 stars, based on 1 article reviews
    cell immunostaining confocal microscope images - by Bioz Stars, 2026-10
    90/100 stars
    		  Buy from Supplier

    Image Search Results


    Images forged by generative models are hard to distinguish We conducted a human-opinion study. This figure shows the normalized histogram of votes per image type. The image used for evaluation consists of five categories: (1) natural images, (2) scanning micrographs of nano materials (nano-micrograph), (3) cell immunostaining images, (4) immunohistochemistry (IHC) images, and (5) histopathological images. In total, 800 images are involved, and each image is rated by at least ten medical experts. The voting scale was between 1 to 4 corresponding to the following: 1 – definitely fake, 2 – probably fake, 3 – probably real, and 4 – definitely real. Mean scores are shown as red dots.

    Journal: Patterns

    Article Title: AI-enabled image fraud in scientific publications

    doi: 10.1016/j.patter.2022.100511

    Figure Lengend Snippet: Images forged by generative models are hard to distinguish We conducted a human-opinion study. This figure shows the normalized histogram of votes per image type. The image used for evaluation consists of five categories: (1) natural images, (2) scanning micrographs of nano materials (nano-micrograph), (3) cell immunostaining images, (4) immunohistochemistry (IHC) images, and (5) histopathological images. In total, 800 images are involved, and each image is rated by at least ten medical experts. The voting scale was between 1 to 4 corresponding to the following: 1 – definitely fake, 2 – probably fake, 3 – probably real, and 4 – definitely real. Mean scores are shown as red dots.

    Article Snippet: The images used for evaluation may be classified into five categories: (1) natural images, such as natural sceneries, architectures, flora, and fauna; (2) scanning micrographs of nano materials collected from Internet; (3) cell immunostaining confocal microscope images from the Human Protein Atlas dataset; (4) immunohistochemistry (IHC) images collected from clinical and the Human Protein Atlas datasets; and (5) histopathological images from the breast cancer histopathological dataset (BreCaHAD).

    Techniques: Immunostaining, Immunohistochemistry