MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2075859678 · doi:10.1364/boe.5.000208

Pulsetrain-burst mode, ultrafast-laser interactions with 3D viable cell cultures as a model for soft biological tissues

2013· article· en· W2075859678 on OpenAlexafffund
Zuoming Qian, Aghapi Mordovanakis, Joshua E. Schoenly, Andrés Covarrubias, Yuanfeng Feng, Lothar Lilge, R. S. Marjoribanks

Bibliographic record

VenueBiomedical Optics Express · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLaser Material Processing Techniques
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreOntario Institute for Cancer ResearchUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsLaserConfocal microscopyConfocalMicroscopyMaterials scienceBiophysicsIrradiationConfocal laser scanning microscopyDNA damageOpticsBiomedical engineeringDNAChemistryCell biologyBiologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A 3D living-cell culture in hydrogel has been developed as a standardized low-tensile-strength tissue proxy for study of ultrafast, pulsetrain-burst laser-tissue interactions. The hydrogel is permeable to fluorescent biomarkers and optically transparent, allowing viable and necrotic cells to be imaged in 3D by confocal microscopy. Good cell-viability allowed us to distinguish between typical cell mortality and delayed subcellular tissue damage (e.g., apoptosis and DNA repair complex formation), caused by laser irradiation. The range of necrosis depended on laser intensity, but not on pulsetrain-burst duration. DNA double-strand breaks were quantified, giving a preliminary upper limit for genetic damage following laser treatment.

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)0.001
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 score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.246 · 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

Citations21
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiomedical Optics ExpressSame topicLaser Material Processing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207