A comparison of parametric and integrative approaches for X-ray fluorescence analysis applied to a Stroke model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Synchrotron X-ray fluorescence imaging enables visualization and quantification of microscopic distributions of elements. This versatile technique has matured to the point where it is used in a wide range of research fields. The method can be used to quantitate the levels of different elements in the image on a pixel-by-pixel basis. Two approaches to X-ray fluorescence image analysis are commonly used, namely, (i) integrative analysis, or window binning, which simply sums the numbers of all photons detected within a specific energy region of interest; and (ii) parametric analysis, or fitting, in which emission spectra are represented by the sum of parameters representing a series of peaks and other contributing factors. This paper presents a quantitative comparison between these two methods of image analysis using X-ray fluorescence imaging of mouse brain-tissue sections; it is shown that substantial errors can result when data from overlapping emission lines are binned rather than fitted. These differences are explored using two different digital signal processing data-acquisition systems with different count-rate and emission-line resolution characteristics. Irrespective of the digital signal processing electronics, there are substantial differences in quantitation between the two approaches. Binning analyses are thus shown to contain significant errors that not only distort the data but in some cases result in complete reversal of trends between different tissue regions.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".