Two-photon Microscopy and Polarimetry for Assessment of Myocardial Tissue Organization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Optical methods can provide useful tissue characterization tools. For this project, two-photon microscopy and polarized light examinations (polarimetry) were used to assess the organizational state of myocardium in healthy, infarcted, and stem-cell regenerated states. Two-photon microscopy visualizes collagen through second-harmonic generation and myocytes through two-photon excitation autofluorescence, providing information on the composition and structure/organization of the tissue. Polarimetry measurements yield a value of linear retardance that can serve as an indicator of tissue anisotropy, and with a dual-projection method, information about the anisotropy axis orientation can also be extracted. Two-photon microscopy results reveal that stem-cell treated tissue retains more myocytes and structure than infarcted myocardium, while polarimetry findings suggest that the injury caused by temporary ligation of a coronary artery is less severe and more diffuse that than caused by a permanent ligation. Both these methods show potential for tissue characterization.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".