Multisite Optical Measurement of Membrane Potential
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
An optical measurement of membrane potential using a molecular probe might be beneficial in a variety of circumstances. “Such a probe could, we believe, provide a powerful new technique for measuring membrane potential in systems where, for reasons of scale, topology, or complexity, the use of electrodes is inconvenient or impossible” (B. M. Salzberg, personal sentence). The possibility of using optical methods was first suggested in 1968 by the discovery of potential-dependent changes in intrinsic optical properties of squid giant axons (Cohen et al., 1968). Shortly thereafter, (1968) found stimulus-dependent changes in fluorescence of stained axons, and in 1971 a search was begun (Cohen et al., 1971) for dyes that would give signals large enough to be useful for monitoring membrane potential. By now more than 1000 dyes have been tested for their ability to act as molecular transducers of changes in membrane potential into changes in three types of optical signals: absorption, birefringence, and fluorescence. This screening effort has resulted in the discovery of dyes with a signal-to-noise ratio 100 times larger than was available from any signal in 1971. Several of these dyes (see, e.g., Fig. 1) have been used to monitor changes in potential in a variety of preparations. For reviews, see (1978), (1979), (1983), (1988), and (1988). An earlier discussion of methods was published (Cohen and Lesher, 1986).
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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