MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2025359778 · doi:10.1002/jemt.20928

Gold nanoparticles and quantum dots for bioimaging

2010· review· en· W2025359778 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueMicroscopy Research and Technique · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicGold and Silver Nanoparticles Synthesis and Applications
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuantum dotNanotechnologySurface plasmon resonanceColloidal goldNanoparticlePreclinical imagingMaterials scienceComputer scienceIn vivoBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nanoparticles are the latest tool acquired by the science of bioimaging, serving primarily as new contrast agents, sensors, or signal enhancing agents in established and developing imaging techniques. This review focuses on the unique properties of two classes of nanoparticles: gold nanoparticles (GNP) and quantum dots, and how these properties are benefiting cellular and in vivo imaging. We discuss the surface plasmon resonance of GNP and its implications for various imaging techniques of biological relevance. Furthermore, the key properties of quantum dots are reviewed, and their use alone or in combination with traditional fluorescent dyes for biological imaging are described. The underlying principles of these techniques are provided, along with some representative examples.

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.

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.606
Threshold uncertainty score0.666

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.113
GPT teacher head0.437
Teacher spread0.324 · 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