MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2971949235 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0221714

Methods for analyzing tellurium imaging mass cytometry data

2019· article· en· W2971949235 on OpenAlexafffund
Jay Bassan, Mark Nitz

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicSingle-cell and spatial transcriptomics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaConnaught FundUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsTelluriumMass cytometryChemistryBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Imaging mass cytometry (IMC) is a technique allowing visualization and quantification of over 40 biological parameters in a single experiment with subcellular spatial resolution, however most IMC experiments are limited to endpoint analysis with antibodies and DNA stains. Small molecules containing tellurium are promising probes for IMC due to their cell permeability, synthetic versatility, and most importantly their application to sequential labelling with isotopologous probes (SLIP) experiments. SLIP experiments with tellurium-containing probes allow quantification of intracellular biology at multiple timepoints with IMC. Despite the promise of tellurium in IMC, there are unique challenges in image processing associated with tellurium IMC data. Here, we address some of these issues by demonstrating the removal of xenon background signal, combining channels to improve signal-to-noise ratio, and calculating isotope transmission efficiency biases. These developments add accuracy to the unique temporal resolution afforded by tellurium IMC probes.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.077

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0230.013

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.247 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations7
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicSingle-cell and spatial transcriptomicsFrench-language works237,207