MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4313436638 · doi:10.1364/oe.476486

Human-vision-inspired cluster identification for single-molecule localization microscopy

2023· article· en· W4313436638 on OpenAlexafffund
Lei Chen, Qian Liu, Keng C. Chou

Bibliographic record

VenueOptics Express · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAdvanced Fluorescence Microscopy Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersFundamental Research Funds for the Central UniversitiesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaBasic and Applied Basic Research Foundation of Guangdong ProvinceCanada Foundation for Innovation
KeywordsCluster (spacecraft)Computer sciencePoint cloudPoint spread functionIdentification (biology)MicroscopyComputer visionOptical transfer functionOpticsPoint (geometry)Artificial intelligenceAlgorithmPhysicsMathematicsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Single-molecule localization microscopy has enabled scientists to visualize cellular structures at the nanometer scale. However, researchers are facing great challenges in analyzing images presented by point clouds. Existing algorithms for cluster identification are coordinate-based analyses requiring users to input cutoff thresholds based on the distance or density of the point cloud. These thresholds are often one's best guess with repeated visual inspections, making the cluster assignment user-dependent. Here, we present a cluster identification algorithm mimicking the modulation transfer function of human vision. This approach does not require any input parameters and produces visually satisfactory cluster assignments. We tested this algorithm by identifying the clusters of the fusion proteins of the Nipah virus on its host cells. This algorithm was further extended to analyze three-dimensional point clouds using virus-like particles as an example.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.807
Threshold uncertainty score0.727

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.312 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOptics ExpressSame topicAdvanced Fluorescence Microscopy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207