Automated Embryo Manipulation and Rotation via Robotic nDEP-Tweezers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Embryo manipulation is a fundamental task in assisted reproductive technology (ART). Nevertheless, conventional pick-place techniques often require proper alignment to avoid causing damage to the embryo and further, the tools have limited capability to orient the embryo being handled. OBJECTIVE: This paper presents a novel and non-invasive technique that can easily manipulate mouse embryos on a polyvinyl chloride (PVC) Petri dish. METHODS: An inverted microchip with quadrupole electrodes was attached to a micromanipulator to become a robotic dielectrophoresis (DEP) tweezers, and a motorized platform provided additional mobility to the embryos lying on a Petri dish. Vision-based algorithms were developed to evaluate relevant information of the embryos from the image, and to provide feedback signals for precise position and orientation control of the embryo. RESULTS: A series of experiments was conducted to examine the system performance, and the embryo can be successfully manipulated to a specified location with the desired orientation for subsequent processing. CONCLUSION: This system offers a non-contact, low cost, and flexible method for rapid cell handling. SIGNIFICANCE: As the DEP tweezers can grasp the embryo without the need for precise alignment, the overall time required to process a large number of embryos can be shortened.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".