MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2920513656 · doi:10.1109/tbme.2019.2901763

Micropipette Aspiration of Single Cells for Both Mechanical and Electrical Characterization

2019· article· en· W2920513656 on OpenAlexaff
Huayan Pu, Haige Chen, Yu Sun, Na Liu, Jiasheng Yu, Yang Yang, Yi Sun, Yan Peng, Shaorong Xie, Jun Luo, Liang Dong

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCellular Mechanics and Interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsPipetteMaterials scienceElastic modulusBiomedical engineeringCharacterization (materials science)ModulusCapacitanceComposite materialNanotechnologyChemistryMedicineElectrode

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cellular physical properties have been identified to reflect cell states. Existing techniques are able to characterize either mechanical or electrical properties of a cell. This paper presents a micropipette aspiration technique that enables the characterization of both mechanical (instantaneous elastic modulus, equilibrium elastic modulus, and viscosity), and electrical (specific membrane capacitance) properties of the same single cell. Two bladder cancer cell lines (RT4 and T24) with different metastatic potential were used to evaluate the technique. The results showed that high-grade bladder cancer cells (T24, grade III) possess lower viscosity, lower elastic modulus, and larger SMC than the low-grade cancer cells (RT4, grade I). The Naive Bayes classifier was utilized to assess the classification accuracy using single-physical and multi-physical parameters. The classification results confirmed that the use of multi-biophysical parameters resulted in higher accuracy (97.5%), sensitivity (100%), and specificity (95.2%) than the use of a single-physical parameter for distinguishing T24 and RT4 cells.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.678
Threshold uncertainty score0.380

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.188 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations45
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Biomedical EngineeringSame topicCellular Mechanics and InteractionsFrench-language works237,207