MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2066254002 · doi:10.1002/smll.201301716

Neodymium‐Doped LaF<sub>3</sub> Nanoparticles for Fluorescence Bioimaging in the Second Biological Window

2013· article· en· W2066254002 on OpenAlexaff
Uéslen Rocha, Carlos Jacinto, Irène Villa, Francisco Sanz-Rodrı́guez, M. Carmen Iglesias‐de la Cruz, Ángeles Juarranz, Elisa Carrasco, Frank C. J. M. van Veggel, Enrico Bovero, J. Garcı́a Solé, Daniel Jaque

Bibliographic record

VenueSmall · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicLuminescence Properties of Advanced Materials
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFluorescenceNanoparticleMaterials scienceLuminescenceDopingBiological imagingNanotechnologyAnalytical Chemistry (journal)OpticsOptoelectronicsChemistryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The future perspective of fluorescence imaging for real in vivo application are based on novel efficient nanoparticles which is able to emit in the second biological window (1000-1400 nm). In this work, the potential application of Nd(3+) -doped LaF(3) (Nd(3+) :LaF(3) ) nanoparticles is reported for fluorescence bioimaging in both the first and second biological windows based on their three main emission channels of Nd(3+) ions: (4) F(3/2) →(4) I(9/2) , (4) F(3/2) →(4) I(11/2) and (4) F(3/2) →(4) I(13/2) that lead to emissions at around 910, 1050, and 1330 nm, respectively. By systematically comparing the relative emission intensities, penetration depths and subtissue optical dispersion of each transition we propose that optimum subtissue images based on Nd(3+) :LaF(3) nanoparticles are obtained by using the (4) F3/2 →(4) I11/2 (1050 nm) emission band (lying in the second biological window) instead of the traditionally used (4) F(3/2) →(4) I(9/2) (910 nm, in the first biological window). After determining the optimum emission channel, it is used to obtain both in vitro and in vivo images by the controlled incorporation of Nd(3+) :LaF(3) nanoparticles in cancer cells and mice. Nd(3+) :LaF(3)nanoparticles thus emerge as very promising fluorescent nanoprobes for bioimaging in the second biological window.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.203 · 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 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

Citations213
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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