Photoluminescent Nanoparticles for Chemical and Biological Analysis and Imaging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research related to the development and application of luminescent nanoparticles (LNPs) for chemical and biological analysis and imaging is flourishing. Novel materials and new applications continue to be reported after two decades of research. This review provides a comprehensive and heuristic overview of this field. It is targeted to both newcomers and experts who are interested in a critical assessment of LNP materials, their properties, strengths and weaknesses, and prospective applications. Numerous LNP materials are cataloged by fundamental descriptions of their chemical identities and physical morphology, quantitative photoluminescence (PL) properties, PL mechanisms, and surface chemistry. These materials include various semiconductor quantum dots, carbon nanotubes, graphene derivatives, carbon dots, nanodiamonds, luminescent metal nanoclusters, lanthanide-doped upconversion nanoparticles and downshifting nanoparticles, triplet–triplet annihilation nanoparticles, persistent-luminescence nanoparticles, conjugated polymer nanoparticles and semiconducting polymer dots, multi-nanoparticle assemblies, and doped and labeled nanoparticles, including but not limited to those based on polymers and silica. As an exercise in the critical assessment of LNP properties, these materials are ranked by several application-related functional criteria. Additional sections highlight recent examples of advances in chemical and biological analysis, point-of-care diagnostics, and cellular, tissue, and in vivo imaging and theranostics. These examples are drawn from the recent literature and organized by both LNP material and the particular properties that are leveraged to an advantage. Finally, a perspective on what comes next for the field is offered.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".