MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2098027096 · doi:10.1002/cphc.201100414

Photon Counting Histogram Analysis for Two‐Dimensional Systems

2011· article· en· W2098027096 on OpenAlexafffund
Max Anikovsky, Zach D. Wiltshire, Klaus Weißhart, Nils O. Petersen

Bibliographic record

VenueChemPhysChem · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAdvanced Fluorescence Microscopy Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaNational Institute for Nanotechnology
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsHistogramBrightnessPhoton countingPhotonConfocalExcitationGaussianChemistryStatistical physicsBiological systemPhysicsOpticsQuantum mechanicsComputer scienceComputational chemistryArtificial intelligenceImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Photon counting statistics in 3D photon counting histogram analysis for one-photon excitation is a function of the number of molecules of particular brightness in the excitation-detection volume of a confocal microscope. In mathematical form that volume is approximated by a three-dimensional Gaussian function which is embedded in the PCH theoretical equations. PCH theory assumes that a molecule can be found anywhere inside the excitation-detection volume with equal probability. However, one can easily imagine systems in which this assumption is violated because molecules are constrained by the geometry of the sample. For example, molecules on a surface or in a membrane would be constrained to two dimensions. To enable the analysis of such systems by PCH, the theoretical framework requires modification. Herein, we present an extension of the PCH analysis to systems where molecules exist in thin structures that are effectively two-dimensional. The method, aptly called two-dimensional photon counting histogram (2D PCH), recovers the number of fluorescent particles per unit area and their molecular brightness. Both theoretical background and experimental results are presented. The theory was tested using computer-simulated and experimental 2D PCHs obtained from confocal experiments. We demonstrate that this modification of the theoretical framework provides a tool to extract data that reveal states of aggregation, surface photophysics, and reactivity.

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 score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.732

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.259 · 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

Citations4
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChemPhysChemSame topicAdvanced Fluorescence Microscopy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207