MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4249145210 · doi:10.1121/1.4800384

Acoustic and photoacoustic imaging of spheroids

2013· article· en· W4249145210 on OpenAlexafffund
Michael C. Kolios, Elizabeth Berndl, Lauren A. Wirtzfeld, Eric M. Strohm, Gregory J. Czarnota

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of meetings on acoustics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPhotoacoustic and Ultrasonic Imaging
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science CentreHealth Sciences CentreToronto Metropolitan University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsSpheroidMaterials sciencePhotoacoustic imaging in biomedicineUltrasoundAbsorption (acoustics)Biomedical engineeringNanorodNanoparticleOpticsMicroscopeChemistryNanotechnologyAcousticsPhysicsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Acoustic and photoacoustic high frequency imaging (50-100 MHz) can be used to generate images of cell constructs and spheroids with good spatial resolution and contrast. Here we demonstrate how co-registered acoustic and photoacoustic imaging can be used for imaging spheroids. Spheroids are widely used in cancer research and biology since they emulate a 3-dimensional environment such as that experienced in tumors. Spheroids were made by the hanging-drop method using the MCF-7 cancer cell line. To generate photoacoustic contrast, MCF-7 cells were incubated with optical absorbing nanoparticles (e.g. gold nanorods, 780nm absorption) for 24 hours and mixed with native MCF-7 cells prior to spheroid formation. The spheroids were between 0.5 mm and 1mm in diameter. Imaging was performed with the VisualSonics VEVO 770 (25-55 MHz) and a high-resolution SASAM acoustic/photoacoustic microscope for frequencies over 80 MHz (Kibero GmbH, Germany). The spheroid was imaged first using pulse echo ultrasound, then with photoacoustics immediately after. The necrotic core of the spheroid had a 20dB increase in ultrasound backscatter compared the viable cells surrounding the core, and the ultrasound/photoacoustic images of the spheroid were co-registered showing the distribution of the optical absorbing agents.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.767
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.180
Teacher spread0.176 · 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
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of meetings on acousticsSame topicPhotoacoustic and Ultrasonic ImagingFrench-language works237,207