MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2035572526 · doi:10.3390/cancers4041067

High Resolution Fluorescence Imaging of Cancers Using Lanthanide Ion-Doped Upconverting Nanocrystals

2012· article· en· W2035572526 on OpenAlexafffund
Rafik Naccache, Emma Martín Rodríguez, Nicoleta Bogdan, Francisco Sanz-Rodrı́guez, M. Carmen Iglesias‐de la Cruz, Ángeles Juarranz, Fiorenzo Vetrone, Daniel Jaque, J. Garcı́a Solé, John A. Capobianco

Bibliographic record

VenueCancers · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicLuminescence Properties of Advanced Materials
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de la Recherche ScientifiqueConcordia University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaFonds Québécois de la Recherche sur la Nature et les TechnologiesConcordia UniversityUniversidad Autónoma de MadridComunidad de Madrid
KeywordsPhoton upconversionLanthanideMaterials scienceNanoparticleFluorescenceNanocrystalNanotechnologyLuminescenceQuantum dotDopingIonNanorodOptoelectronicsChemistryOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During the last decade inorganic luminescent nanoparticles that emit visible light under near infrared (NIR) excitation (in the biological window) have played a relevant role for high resolution imaging of cancer. Indeed, semiconductor quantum dots (QDs) and metal nanoparticles, mostly gold nanorods (GNRs), are already commercially available for this purpose. In this work we review the role which is being played by a relatively new class of nanoparticles, based on lanthanide ion doped nanocrystals, to target and image cancer cells using upconversion fluorescence microscopy. These nanoparticles are insulating nanocrystals that are usually doped with small percentages of two different rare earth (lanthanide) ions: The excited donor ions (usually Yb3+ ion) that absorb the NIR excitation and the acceptor ions (usually Er3+, Ho3+ or Tm3+), that are responsible for the emitted visible (or also near infrared) radiation. The higher conversion efficiency of these nanoparticles in respect to those based on QDs and GNRs, as well as the almost independent excitation/emission properties from the particle size, make them particularly promising for fluorescence imaging. The different approaches of these novel nanoparticles devoted to "in vitro" and "in vivo" cancer imaging, selective targeting and treatment are examined in this review.

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)0.001
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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Citations63
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancersSame topicLuminescence Properties of Advanced MaterialsFrench-language works237,207