Comparison of SEM and VPSEM imaging techniques with respect to<i>Streptococcus mutans</i>biofilm topography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study compared images of mature Streptococcus mutans biofilms captured at increasing magnification to determine which microscopy method is most acceptable for imaging the biofilm topography and the extracellular polymeric substance (EPS). In vitro S. mutans biofilms were imaged using (1) scanning electron microscopy (SEM), which requires a dehydration process; (2) SEM and ruthenium red (SEM-RR), which has been shown to support the EPS of biofilms during the SEM dehydration; and (3) variable pressure scanning electron microscopy (VPSEM), which does not require the intensive dehydration process of SEM. The dehydration process and high chamber vacuum of both SEM techniques devastated the biofilm EPS, removed supporting structures, and caused cracking on the biofilm surface. The VPSEM offered the most comprehensive representation of the S. mutans biofilm morphology. VPSEM provides similar contrast and focus as the SEM, but the procedure is far less time-consuming, and the use of hazardous chemicals associated with SEM dehydration protocol is avoided with the VPSEM. The inaccurate representations of the biofilm EPS in SEM experimentation is a possible source of inaccurate data and impediments in the study of S. mutans biofilms.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".