Recent advances in optical label‐free characterization of extracellular vesicles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Extracellular vesicles (EVs) are complex biological nanoparticles endogenously secreted by all eukaryotic cells. EVs carry a specific molecular cargo of proteins, lipids, and nucleic acids derived from cells of origin and play a significant role in the physiology and pathology of cells, organs, and organisms. Upon release, they may be found in different body fluids that can be easily accessed via noninvasive methodologies. Due to the unique information encoded in their molecular cargo, they may reflect the state of the parent cell and therefore EVs are recognized as a rich source of biomarkers for early diagnostics involving liquid biopsy. However, body fluids contain a mixture of EVs released by different types of healthy and diseased cells, making the detection of the EVs of interest very challenging. Recent research efforts have been focused on the detection and characterization of diagnostically relevant subpopulations of EVs, with emphasis on label‐free methods that simplify sample preparation and are free of interfering signals. Therefore, in this paper, we review the recent progress of the label‐free optical methods employed for the detection, counting, and morphological and chemical characterization of EVs. We will first briefly discuss the biology and functions of EVs, and then introduce different optical label‐free techniques for rapid, precise, and nondestructive characterization of EVs such as nanoparticle tracking analysis, dynamic light scattering, atomic force microscopy, surface plasmon resonance spectroscopy, Raman spectroscopy, and SERS spectroscopy. In the end, we will discuss their applications in the detection of neurodegenerative diseases and cancer and provide an outlook on the future impact and challenges of these technologies to the field of liquid biopsy via EVs.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".