Three-Dimensional Optical Mapping of Nanoparticle Distribution in Intact Tissues
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The role of tissue architecture in mediating nanoparticle transport, targeting, and biological effects is unknown due to the lack of tools for imaging nanomaterials in whole organs. Here, we developed a rapid optical mapping technique to image nanomaterials in intact organs ex vivo and in three-dimensions (3D). We engineered a high-throughput electrophoretic flow device to simultaneously transform up to 48 tissues into optically transparent structures, allowing subcellular imaging of nanomaterials more than 1 mm deep into tissues which is 25-fold greater than current techniques. A key finding is that nanomaterials can be retained in the processed tissue by chemical cross-linking of surface adsorbed serum proteins to the tissue matrix, which enables nanomaterials to be imaged with respect to cells, blood vessels, and other structures. We developed a computational algorithm to analyze and quantitatively map nanomaterial distribution. This method can be universally applied to visualize the distribution and interactions of materials in whole tissues and animals including such applications as the imaging of nanomaterials, tissue engineered constructs, and biosensors within their intact biological environment.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".