MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3137417265 · doi:10.1101/2021.03.19.436113

CLEM <i>Site</i> , a software for automated phenotypic screens using light microscopy and FIB-SEM

2021· preprint· en· W3137417265 on OpenAlexaff
José Miguel Serra Lleti, Anna M. Steyer, Nicole L. Schieber, Beate Neumann, Volker Hilsenstein, Mike Holtstrom, David Unrau, Robert Kirmse, John M. Lucocq, Rainer Pepperkok, Yannick Schwab

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAdvanced Electron Microscopy Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsFibics (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicroscopyFocused ion beamComputer scienceResolution (logic)SoftwareElectron microscopeAutomationWorkflowVolume (thermodynamics)Computer visionScanning electron microscopeTracking (education)Artificial intelligenceMaterials scienceOpticsPhysicsIonEngineeringDatabase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Correlative light and electron microscopy (CLEM) combines two imaging modalities, balancing out the limits of one technique with the other. In recent years, Focused Ion Beam Scanning Electron Microscopy (FIB-SEM) has emerged as a flexible method that enables semi-automated volume acquisition at the ultrastructural level. We present a toolset for adherent cultured cells that enables tracking and finding cell regions previously identified in light microscopy, in the FIB-SEM along with automatic acquisition of high-resolution volume datasets. We detect a grid pattern in both modalities (LM and EM), which identifies common reference points. The novel combination of these techniques enables complete automation of the workflow. This includes setting the coincidence point of both ion and electron beams, automated evaluation of the image quality and constantly tracking the sample position with the microscope’s field of view reducing or even eliminating operator supervision. We show the ability to target the regions of interest in EM within 5 µ m accuracy, while iterating between different targets and implementing unattended data acquisition. Our results demonstrate that executing high throughput volume acquisition in electron microscopy is possible.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.175
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.266 · 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.

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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)Same topicAdvanced Electron Microscopy Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207