3D printer platform and conductance feedback loop for automated imaging of uneven surfaces by liquid microjunction‐surface sampling probe mass spectrometry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: Molecular imaging of samples using mass spectrometric techniques, such as matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization or desorption electrospray ionization, requires the sample surface to be even/flat and sliced into thin sections (c. 10 μm). Furthermore, sample preparation steps can alter the analyte composition of the sample. The liquid microjunction-surface sampling probe (LMJ-SSP) is a robust sampling interface that enables surface profiling with minimal sample preparation. In conjunction with a conductance feedback system, the LMJ-SSP can be used to automatically sample uneven specimens. METHODS: A sampling stage was built with a modified 3D printer where the LMJ-SSP is attached to the printing head. This setup can scan across flat and even surfaces in a predefined pattern ("static sampling mode"). Uneven samples are automatically probed in "conductance sampling mode" where an electric potential is applied and measured at the probe. When the probe contacts the electrically grounded sample, the potential at the probe drops, which is used as a feedback signal to determine the optimal position of the probe for sampling each location. RESULTS: The applicability of the probe/sensing system was demonstrated by first examining the strawberry tissue using the "static sampling mode." Second, porcine tissue samples were profiled using the "conductance sampling mode." With minimal sample preparation, an area of 11 × 15 mm was profiled in less than 2 h. From the obtained results, adipose areas could be distinguished from non-adipose parts. The versatility of the approach was further demonstrated by directly sampling the bacteria colonies on agar and resected human kidney (intratumoral hemorrhage) specimens with thicknesses ranging from 1 to 4 mm. CONCLUSION: The LMJ-SSP in conjunction with a conductive feedback system is a powerful tool that allows for fast, reproducible, and automated assessment of uneven surfaces with minimal sample preparation. This setup could be used for perioperative assessment of tissue samples, food screening, and natural product discovery, among others.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".