MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2232199395 · doi:10.1039/c5nh00073d

Exploiting the biological windows: current perspectives on fluorescent bioprobes emitting above 1000 nm

2016· article· en· W2232199395 on OpenAlexaff
Eva Hemmer, Antonio Benayas, François Légaré, Fiorenzo Vetrone

Bibliographic record

VenueNanoscale Horizons · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAdvanced biosensing and bioanalysis techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversité du QuébecInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFluorescenceCurrent (fluid)NanotechnologyComputer scienceMaterials scienceBiochemical engineeringEngineeringOpticsPhysicsElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the goal of developing more accurate, efficient, non-invasive and fast diagnostic tools, the use of near-infrared (NIR) light in the range of the second and third biological windows (NIR-II: 1000-1350 nm, NIR-III: 1550-1870 nm) is growing remarkably as it provides the advantages of deeper penetration depth into biological tissues, better image contrast, reduced phototoxicity and photobleaching. Consequently, NIR-based bioimaging has become a quickly emerging field and manifold new NIR-emitting bioprobes have been reported. Classes of materials suggested as potential probes for NIR-to-NIR bioimaging (using NIR light for the excitation and emission) are quite diverse. These include rare-earth based nanoparticles, Group-IV nanostructures (single-walled carbon nanotubes, carbon nanoparticles and more recently Si- or Ge-based nanostructures) as well as Ag, In and Pb chalcogenide quantum dots. This review summarizes and discusses current trends, material merits, and latest developments in NIR-to-NIR bioimaging taking advantage of the region above 1000 nm (i.e. the second and third biological windows). Further consideration will be given to upcoming probe materials emitting in the NIR-I region (700-950 nm), thus do not possess emissions in these two windows, but have high expectations. Overall, the focus is placed on recent discussions concerning the optimal choice of excitation and emission wavelengths for deep-tissue high-resolution optical bioimaging and on fluorescent bioprobes that have successfully been implemented in in vitro and in vivo applications.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.261 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations712
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNanoscale HorizonsSame topicAdvanced biosensing and bioanalysis techniquesFrench-language works237,207