Bibliographic record
Abstract
Acoustic impedance maps of cells can be used to gain insight into its microstructures and physiological state. Information about the cell’s microstructures can be acquired from the acoustic impedance map fluctuations. The maps can also help identify the dominant scattering source in cells. Furthermore, the cell’s physiological state can be inferred from the average acoustic impedance values as many physiological changes in the cell are linked to the alteration in the mechanical properties. A method called acoustic impedance imaging has been used to measure the impedance of biological tissues. We used an acoustic microscope attached to a transducer with a center frequency of 375MHz to acquire acoustic impedance images of breast cancer cells. The generated images suggest that the nucleus has an acoustic impedance similar to the surrounding cytoplasm. Fluorescence and confocal microscopy were used to correlate acoustic impedance images with the cell microstructure (the nucleus). Simulation results demonstrate the system’s capability in detecting cell microstructures close to the substrate. The average acoustic impedance were used to differentiate between single-live, clustered-live and clustered-fixed cancer cells with a measured values of 1.60±0.01 MRayl, 1.61±0.02 MRayl and 1.55±0.02 MRayl respectively.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".