MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2024564439 · doi:10.1088/0031-9155/56/8/n01

Effects of formalin fixation on tissue optical polarization properties

2011· article· en· W2024564439 on OpenAlexafffund
Michael F. G. Wood, N Vurgun, Marika A. Wallenburg, I. Alex Vitkin

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics in Medicine and Biology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicSpectroscopy Techniques in Biomedical and Chemical Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoOntario Institute for Cancer Research
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsFixation (population genetics)Scattering coefficientAttenuation coefficientMaterials scienceDepolarizationPolarimetryMicroscopyPathologyChemistryBiomedical engineeringOpticsScatteringBiophysicsBiologyMedicinePhysicsBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Formalin fixation is a preparation method widely used in handling tissue specimens, such as biopsies, specifically in optical studies such as microscopy. In this note, we examine how formalin fixation affects the polarization properties of porcine myocardium and liver as assessed by optical polarimetry. Spatial maps of linear retardance and depolarization were derived from four myocardial and four liver samples before and after formalin fixation. Overall, linear retardance and depolarization increased after fixation for both myocardium (15% and 23% increase, respectively) and liver (38% and 51%, respectively). The relative increase in retardance was greater in liver compared to myocardium, although the absolute increase in retardance was comparable for both. The effect of fixation on bulk optical properties was also investigated for myocardium where the scattering coefficient increased from 92 to 132 cm(-1) and the absorption coefficient remained constant at 1.1 cm(-1).

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.181

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.110
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations40
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics in Medicine and BiologySame topicSpectroscopy Techniques in Biomedical and Chemical ResearchFrench-language works237,207