Optimized Mass Spectrometry Analysis Workflow with Polarimetric Guidance for ex vivo and in situ Sampling of Biological Tissues
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spatially Targeted Mass Spectrometry (MS) analysis using survey scans with an imaging modality often requires consecutive tissue slices, because of the tissue damage during survey scan or due to incompatible sample preparation requirements between the survey modality and MS. We report two spatially targeted MS analysis workflows based on polarized light imaging guidance that use the same tissue sample for survey and targeted analysis. The first workflow is applicable for thin-slice analysis, and uses transmission-polarimetry-guided Desorption ElectroSpray Ionization Mass Spectrometry (DESI-MS), and confirmatory H&E histopathology analysis on the same slice; this is validated using quantitative digital pathology methods. The second workflow explores a polarimetry-guided MS platform for thick tissue assessment by developing reflection-mode polarimetric imaging coupled with a hand-held Picosecond InfraRed Laser (PIRL) MS ablation probe that requires minimal tissue removal to produce detectable signal. Tissue differentiation within 5-10 s of sampling with the hand-held probe is shown using multivariate statistical methods of the MS profiles. Both workflows were tasked with differentiating necrotic cancer sites from viable cancers using a breast tumour model, and their performance was evaluated. The use of the same tissue surface addresses mismatches in guidance due to intrinsic changes in tissue morphology over consecutive sections.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".