MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1505500150 · doi:10.1007/978-1-62703-056-4_2

Epi-Fluorescence Microscopy

2012· article· en· W1505500150 on OpenAlexafffund
Donna J. Webb, Claire M. Brown

Bibliographic record

VenueMethods in molecular biology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAdvanced Fluorescence Microscopy Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNational Institute of Mental HealthNational Institutes of HealthNational Institute of General Medical SciencesMcGill University
KeywordsDichroic glassOpticsMicroscopeFluorescenceMicroscopyMaterials scienceFluorescence microscopeLight sheet fluorescence microscopyDichroic filterFluorescence-lifetime imaging microscopyDeconvolutionOptoelectronicsPhysicsLight source

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Epi-fluorescence microscopy is available in most life sciences research laboratories, and when optimized can be a central laboratory tool. In this chapter, the epi-fluorescence light path is introduced and the various components are discussed in detail. Recommendations are made for incident lamp light sources, excitation and emission filters, dichroic mirrors, objective lenses, and charge-coupled device (CCD) cameras in order to obtain the most sensitive epi-fluorescence microscope. The even illumination of metal-halide lamps combined with new "hard" coated filters and mirrors, a high resolution monochrome CCD camera, and a high NA objective lens are all recommended for high resolution and high sensitivity fluorescence imaging. Recommendations are also made for multicolor imaging with the use of monochrome cameras, motorized filter turrets, individual filter cubes, and corresponding dyes being the best choice for sensitive, high resolution multicolor imaging. Images should be collected using Nyquist sampling and images should be corrected for background intensity contributions and nonuniform illumination across the field of view. Photostable fluorescent probes and proteins that absorb a lot of light (i.e., high extinction co-efficients) and generate a lot of fluorescence signal (i.e., high quantum yields) are optimal. A neuronal immune-fluorescence labeling protocol is also presented. Finally, in order to maximize the utility of sensitive wide-field microscopes and generate the highest resolution images with high signal-to-noise, advice for combining wide-field epi-fluorescence imaging with restorative image deconvolution is presented.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.176

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0530.024

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.425
Teacher spread0.409 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations90
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMethods in molecular biologySame topicAdvanced Fluorescence Microscopy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207