Detectability of fluorescent gold nanoparticles under micro-CT and optical projection tomography imaging
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Preclinical studies often compare micro-computed tomography (micro-CT) imaging with histology using optical microscopy of fluorescently labeled slides. However, correlating the images is difficult because the tissues appear differently in the two modalities. It would be valuable to have a single contrast medium visible on both radiographic and optical imaging. Approach: We have explored the detectability of fluorescently labeled gold nanoparticles under micro-CT and optical projection tomography (OPT) in agarose phantoms and a murine melanoma tumor model. Murine melanoma cells were used to induce tumor growth in the right hind legs of 12 C57Bl6 mice, with the maximal tumor size of 1 cm3. We injected Cy3 fluorescently coated gold nanorods directly into the tumors. The mice were scanned with in vivo micro-CT (for pre- and post-contrast scans). Once euthanized, the hind leg was dissected and scanned with a higher resolution specimen micro-CT and OPT. Results: The distribution of the gold nanoparticles appeared to be contained and isolated to the tumor. Alignment of micro-CT specimen scans with the OPT scans was possible, although there was also autofluorescence of the surrounding muscle tissue. Conclusions: This study highlights the potential use of fluorescently labeled gold nanoparticles for imaging murine melanoma tumors using micro-CT and OPT.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it