MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2553655246 · doi:10.1038/srep37210

Imaging Cytometry of Human Leukocytes with Third Harmonic Generation Microscopy

2016· article· en· W2553655246 on OpenAlexaff
Chih‐I Wu, Tzung‐Dau Wang, Chia‐Hung Hsieh, Shih-Hung Huang, Jong‐Wei Lin, Szu-Chun Hsu, Hau‐Tieng Wu, Yao‐Ming Wu, Tzu‐Ming Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPhotoacoustic and Ultrasonic Imaging
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Taiwan UniversityFaculdade de Ciências da Saúde, Universidade de MacauUniversidade de MacauMinistry of Science and Technology, Taiwan
KeywordsMicroscopyCytometryFlow cytometryPathologyBiologyMedicineMolecular biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Based on third-harmonic-generation (THG) microscopy and a k-means clustering algorithm, we developed a label-free imaging cytometry method to differentiate and determine the types of human leukocytes. According to the size and average intensity of cells in THG images, in a two-dimensional scatter plot, the neutrophils, monocytes, and lymphocytes in peripheral blood samples from healthy volunteers were clustered into three differentiable groups. Using these features in THG images, we could count the number of each of the three leukocyte types both in vitro and in vivo. The THG imaging-based counting results agreed well with conventional blood count results. In the future, we believe that the combination of this THG microscopy-based imaging cytometry approach with advanced texture analysis of sub-cellular features can differentiate and count more types of blood cells with smaller quantities of blood.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.222 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations47
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicPhotoacoustic and Ultrasonic ImagingFrench-language works237,207