MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2918738317 · doi:10.1109/ultsym.2018.8579959

Sizing Cells Using Acoustic Flow Cytometry

2018· article· en· W2918738317 on OpenAlexaff
Eric M. Strohm, Vaskar Gnyawali, Joseph A. Sebastian, Robert Ngunjiri, Michael J. Moore, Scott Tsai, Michael C. Kolios

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMicrofluidic and Bio-sensing Technologies
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicrofluidicsUltrasoundMaterials scienceLight scatteringAcoustic streamingCytometryFlow cytometryScatteringBiomedical engineeringUltrasonic sensorOpticsAcousticsNanotechnologyPhysicsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We have developed an acoustic flow cytometer that combines ultrasound and microfluidics to rapidly size and count cells label-free in a high-throughput manner. Cells are hydrodynamically focused single file into a narrow stream through an ultrasound beam where ultrasound is scattered from each individual cell. The ultrasound operates at a center frequency of 375 MHz with a wavelength of 4 μm; in this regime, the power spectra of the backscattered ultrasound waves have distinct features at specific frequencies that are directly related to the cell size. Our approach can be used to determine the cell diameter by comparing these unique spectral features to established analytical solutions of ultrasound scattering. 3 μm beads with known scattering properties were used to validate the technique. Then, we examined two cells lines with different average cell diameters; acute myeloid leukemia cells, where 2,390 measurements resulted in a mean diameter of 10.0 ± 1.7 μm, and HT29 colorectal cancer cells, where 1,955 measurements resulted in a mean diameter of 15.0 ± 2.3 μm, The resulting histograms showed anticipated distributions. Microfluidic based devices are commonly used for probing single cells, however, very few can determine the cell size. Our technique combines ultrasound and microfluidics to accurately determine the cell size on a cell-by-cell basis, with the potential for integration with fluorescence, light scattering and quantitative photoacoustic techniques for a multiparameter cellular characterization method.

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 score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.202 · 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

Citations4
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMicrofluidic and Bio-sensing TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207