Spatial annotations in EMAGE are an interpretation of the actual data and not necessarily a definitive description. Therefore the following rankings are assigned by EMAGE curators to designate their confidence in how closely each spatial annotation reflects the data observed in the data image.

Two factors contribute to the overall confidence of an annotation:
(1) the clarity and ease of interpretation of the staining pattern.
(2) the degree of morphological similarity between the data embryo and the EMAP embryo template that the data is mapped onto.

Pattern Clarity and Extraction Rankings

The experiment has yielded a staining pattern that can be interpreted and annotated with high confidence. These may display either areas of discrete staining, or convincing widespread or ubiquitous expression. Evidence of artifact background staining is not apparent.

The experiment has yielded a staining pattern that can be interpreted and annotated with reasonable confidence. These tend to display areas of both convincing staining and artifact background staining.

General, unconvincing basal level of expression that may be contributable to either background staining or a failed staining procedure.

Morphology Match Rankings

Excellent morphology and posture match between the data embryo and the EMAP embryo model spatial template.

Reasonable morphology and posture match between the data embryo and the EMAP embryo model spatial template.

Poor morphology and/or posture match between the data embryo and the EMAP embryo model spatial template, yet the two are still the same Theiler stage of development.