Scanning Transmission Electron Microscopy Methods for the Analysis of Nanoparticles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Here we review the scanning transmission electron microscopy (STEM) characterization technique and STEM imaging methods. We describe applications of STEM for studying inorganic nanoparticles, and other uses of STEM in biological and health sciences and discuss how to interpret STEM results. The STEM imaging mode has certain benefits compared with the broad-beam illumination mode; the main advantage is the collection of the information about the specimen using a high angular annular dark field (HAADF) detector, in which the images registered have different levels of contrast related to the chemical composition of the sample. Another advantage of its use in the analysis of biological samples is its contrast for thick stained sections, since HAADF images of samples with thickness of 100-120 nm have notoriously better contrast than those obtained by other techniques. Combining the HAADF-STEM imaging with the new aberration correction era, the STEM technique reaches a direct way to imaging the atomistic structure and composition of nanostructures at a sub-angstrom resolution. Thus, alloying in metallic nanoparticles is directly resolved at atomic scale by the HAADF-STEM imaging, and the comparison of the STEM images with results from simulations gives a very powerful way of analysis of structure and composition. The use of X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy attached to the electron microscope for STEM mode is also described. In issues where characterization at the atomic scale of the interaction between metallic nanoparticles and biological systems is needed, all the associated techniques to STEM become powerful tools for the best understanding on how to use these particles in biomedical applications.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.010 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".