Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
C. Lundsteen, E. Granum (1976)
Microphotometry of banded human chromosomes IIIClinical Genetics, 10
G. Granlund (1976)
Identification of Human Chromosomes by Using Integrated Density ProfilesIEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, BME-23
K. Marimuthu, W. Selles, P. Neurath (1974)
Computer analysis of Giemsa banding patterns and automatic classification of human chromosomes.American journal of human genetics, 26 3
C. Lundsteen, A. Lind, E. Granum (1976)
Visual classification of banded human chromosomes I. Karyotyping compared with classification of isolated chromosomesAnnals of Human Genetics, 40
Lubs Lubs, Ledley Ledley (1973)
Automated analysis of differentially stained human chromosomesNobel Symp, 23
Lundsteen Lundsteen, Granum Granum (1976)
Microphotometry of banded human chromosomes. III. Scanning on photographic negativesClin. Genet, 10
Lundsteen Lundsteen (1976)
Microphotometry of banded human chromosomes. II. Technique for microphotography of banding petternsClin. Genet, 9
Møller Møller, Nilsson Nilsson (1973)
Computerized statistical analysis of banding patternsNobel Symp, 23
SUMMARY Visual classification and karyotyping of 897 integrated density profiles generated from straight and non‐overlapping chromosomes from 22 trypsin‐bandedmetaphases of average quality was carried out and evaluated. The results were compared with visual classification of photographic prints of the same 897 chromosomes. The experiments were carried out by one observer. About 5% errors were made in classification of isolated profiles; 0.5% errors were made in karyotyping profiles and about 3% errors were made in classification of isolated chromosome prints. The reason for the small error rate obtained by karyotyping profiles as compared to the error rate when classifying isolated profiles was assumed to be the use of a priori knowledge of the composition of (normal) metaphases and the possibility of making appropriate comparisons between the individual profiles within the metaphase. Comparison between classification of isolated prints and of profiles showed different error patterns on the basis of which it was assumed that prints constitute a better basis for visual classification than profiles. The results seemed to indicate two ways of improving computer classification of banded chromosomes: (1) information of value in the chromosomes (band pattern, shape etc.) should be extracted from the digitized chromosome image in a manner superior to the simple integration by which profiles are produced; (2) computer karyotyping should simulate the human method, thus taking advantage of a priori knowledge of the composition of the metaphases and being able to make appropriate comparisons between individual chromosomes.
Annals of Human Genetics – Wiley
Published: May 1, 1977
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.