MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2808792206 · doi:10.1002/jbio.201800008

Quantitative assessment of cell contractility using polarized light microscopy

2018· article· en· W2808792206 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Wenjun Wang, Joseph P. Miller, Susan C. Pannullo, Cynthia A. Reinhart‐King, François Bordeleau

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biophotonics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCellular Mechanics and Interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Cancer InstituteCancer Research Society
KeywordsContractilityMicroscopyPolarized light microscopyMaterials scienceBiophysicsChemistryMedicineOpticsBiologyPathologyInternal medicinePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cell contractility regulates multiple cell behaviors which contribute to both normal and pathological processes. However, measuring cell contractility remains a technical challenge in complex biological samples. The current state of the art technologies employed to measure cell contractility have inherent limitations that greatly limit the experimental conditions under which they can be used. Here, we use quantitative polarization microscopy to extract information about cell contractility. We show that the optical retardance signal measured from the cell body is proportional to cell contractility in 2-dimensional and 3-dimensional platforms, and as such can be used as a straightforward, tractable methodology to assess cell contractility in a variety of systems. This label-free optical method provides a novel and flexible way to assess cellular forces of single cells and monolayers in several cell types, fixed or live, in addition to cells present in situ in mouse tumor tissue samples. This easily implementable and experimentally versatile method will significantly contribute to the cell mechanics field.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.325 · 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

Citations29
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of BiophotonicsSame topicCellular Mechanics and InteractionsFrench-language works237,207