Model Comparison and Assessment for Single Particle Tracking in Biological Fluids
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.
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 | 0.007 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".