The tissue sample was trimmed and sectioned into 27,972 serial sections (nominal thickness 40 nm) ... A total of 26,652 sections were imaged by 5 customized automated TEMs
Results, The EM volume, paragraphs 1 and 2
The imagery is public on BossDB in sharded precomputed format, and em_volume_counts.ipynb reads it. The metadata give bounds in whole chunks of 64 sections, 7,904 to 14,847 for subvolume 35 and 14,816 to 27,903 for subvolume 65, 20,000 sections with a share of 34.56% before subvolume 65. Sampling the chunk layers at each end on a grid of 2,288 chunks at 64 nm per pixel, the imagery holds data from section 7,931 to 14,847 in subvolume 35 and from 14,825 to 27,882 in subvolume 65; a sparser grid and 16 chunks at 16 nm give the same last section. The 8 nm scale was not checked. The first section, 7,931, matches the paper. The region with data is 19,952 sections against the expected 19,974 (tolerance 0), so the count fails. The share of subvolume 35 is 34.47% to 34.67% under the four definitions printed (34.55% with subvolume 35 up to the first section of subvolume 65, given as measured), within 35 +- 3.5%, so the share passes. The metadata give no count of sections cut or imaged. The paper gives section indices, not a count, and 27,904 is the metadata's exclusive end of subvolume 65 (14,816 + 13,088), so the paper's upper bound may be exclusive or a bounding box; this is asked of a reader in questions/000402.yaml. In the first two verification rounds the outcome was blocked (too_large); round 3 agreed with the change to partially_reproduced.
How the test differed from the paper’s method
- The first and last sections with data are read from the imagery at 64 nm per pixel on a grid of every 8th chunk in x and y (2,288 chunks a layer), a choice of this attempt; the release gives no list of processed sections.