Single Cell Photoacoustic Microscopy: A Review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Photoacoustic imaging has experienced exponential growth over the past decade, with many applications in biomedicine. One application ideally suited to the analysis of single cells is photoacoustic microscopy (PAM). Using PAM, detailed submicrometer resolution images of single cells can be produced, with contrast dependent primarily on the optical absorption properties of the cell. A multiwavelength approach for targeting specific endogenous or exogenous chromophores can enhance cellular detail and resolve single organelles with contrast not possible with traditional optical microscopy. A quantitative analysis of the photoacoustic signals acquired from single cells can provide insight into their anatomical, biomechanical, and functional properties. This information can be used to identify specific cells, or to enhance the understanding of biological processes at the single cell level. This comprehensive review on PAM covers recent advances in high-resolution PAM, signal processing methods, and potential clinical applications targeting single cells in vitro and in vivo.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it