MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4323031940 · doi:10.1109/mmm.2022.3233510

Dielectric Spectroscopy: Revealing the True Colors of Biological Matter

2023· article· en· W4323031940 on OpenAlexaff
Marie Mertens, Maede Chavoshi, Olivia Peytral-Rieu, Katia Grenier, Dominique Schreurs

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Microwave Magazine · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMicrowave and Dielectric Measurement Techniques
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCharacterization (materials science)Ionizing radiationPhysicsComputer scienceAlgorithmOpticsNuclear physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Accurate characterization of biological matter, for example, in tissue, cells, and biological fluids, is of high importance. For example, early and correct detection of abnormalities, such as cancer, is essential as it enables early and effective type-specific treatment, which is crucial for mortality reduction[1]. Moreover, it is imperative to investigate the effectiveness and toxicity of pharmaceutical treatments before administration in clinical practice[2]. However, biological matter characterization still faces many challenges. State-of-the-art imaging and characterization methods have drawbacks, such as the requirement to attach difficult-to-find and costly labels to the biological target (e.g., COVID-19 rapid tests), expensive equipment (e.g., magnetic resonance imaging), low accuracy (e.g., ultrasound), use of ionizing radiation (e.g., X-rays), and invasiveness[3]. The characterization of biological matter using microwave (µW), millimeter-wave (mmW), and terahertz (THz) spectroscopy is a promising alternative: it is label-free, does not require ionizing radiation, and can be noninvasive. Moreover, there is a significant difference in how different biological materials absorb, reflect, and transmit electromagnetic (EM) waves[4]that is due to the difference in their dielectric properties. The dielectric properties are described by the frequency-dependent material parameter called the complex permittivity$\mathbf{\varepsilon}\left({\mathbf{f}}\right){,}$which expresses how the material responds to an external oscillating electric field. The complex permittivity of a material determines how the material absorbs, reflects, and transmits EM waves at different frequencies (Figure 1). Since each biological material’s permittivity spectrum is different, it acts as an EM fingerprint. A material’s complex permittivity can be calculated from the reflection and transmission of EM waves through the material, described by the S-parameters, which can be measured using a vector network analyzer (VNA) transmitting and receiving EM waves over a range of frequencies. The amplitude and phase of the transmitted and reflected EM waves at different frequencies are influenced by different underlying biological effects at different scales. That causes the entire spectrum to provide information from the supracellular to the molecular and even atomic scale.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations35
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Microwave MagazineSame topicMicrowave and Dielectric Measurement TechniquesFrench-language works237,207