Multi‐wavelength multi‐direction laser light scattering for cell characterization using machine learning‐based methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cell identification and analysis play a crucial role in many biology- and health-related applications. The internal and surface structures of a cell are complex and many of the features are sub-micron in scale. Well-resolved images of these features cannot be obtained using optical microscopy. Previous studies have reported that the single-cell angular laser-light scattering patterns (ALSP) can be used for label-free cell identification and analysis. The ALSP can be affected by cell properties and the wavelength of the probing laser. Two cell properties, cell surface roughness and the number of mitochondria, are investigated in this study. The effects of probing laser wavelengths (blue, green, and red) and the directions of scattered light collection (forward, side, and backward) are studied to determine the optimum conditions for distinguishing the two cell properties. Machine learning (ML) analysis has been applied to ALSP obtained from numerical simulations. The results of ML analysis show that the backward scattering is the best direction for characterizing the surface roughness, while the forward scattering is the best direction for differentiating the number of mitochondria. The laser light having red or green wavelength is found to perform better than that having the blue wavelength in differentiating the surface roughness and the number of mitochondria. This study provides important insights into the effects of probing laser wavelength on gaining information about cells from their ALSP.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".