Model Comparison and Assessment for Single Particle Tracking in Biological Fluids
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
State-of-the-art techniques in passive particle-tracking microscopy provide high-resolution path trajectories of diverse foreign particles in biological fluids. For particles on the order of 1 μm diameter, these paths are generally inconsistent with simple Brownian motion. Yet, despite an abundance of data confirming these findings and their wide-ranging scientific implications, stochastic modeling of the complex particle motion has received comparatively little attention. Even among posited models, there is virtually no literature on likelihood-based inference, model comparisons, and other quantitative assessments. In this article, we develop a rigorous and computationally efficient Bayesian methodology to address this gap. We analyze two of the most prevalent candidate models for 30-sec paths of 1 μm diameter tracer particles in human lung mucus: fractional Brownian motion (fBM) and a Generalized Langevin Equation (GLE) consistent with viscoelastic theory. Our model comparisons distinctly favor GLE over fBM, with the former describing the data remarkably well up to the timescales for which we have reliable information. Supplementary materials for this article are available online.
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 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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