2
$\begingroup$

I analyzed a bunch of microphotographs recently and used "% of image area" to describe the area of structures (chorionic villi, had to show their density in placenta). However my professor suggested I should have used mm2. There is no problem in conversion, but I suspect different microscopes may have different areas of field of view for the same scale. Thus the conversion will make the results just more difficult to interpret.

So does the absolute area of microphotographs of the same scale and size differ between microscopes/cameras? Or is it somehow standartized?

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

Thus the conversion will make the results just more difficult to interpret.

I'm not personally familiar with this specific measurement, but in general, unless there is a specific convention in how to report a measurement, an absolute measurement should make the results easier to interpret, not more difficult (vs. % of image area). From a quick search, it seems like absolute measures of area, volume, and density are typically used when reporting chorionic villi measurements, so there isn't a convention to do it another way.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.