Shadow imaging for panoptical visualization of brain tissue in vivo
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Progress in neuroscience research hinges on technical advances in visualizing living brain tissue with high fidelity and facility. Current neuroanatomical imaging approaches either require tissue fixation (electron microscopy), do not have cellular resolution (magnetic resonance imaging) or only give a fragmented view (fluorescence microscopy). Here, we show how regular light microscopy together with fluorescence labeling of the interstitial fluid in the extracellular space provide comprehensive optical access in real-time to the anatomical complexity and dynamics of living brain tissue at submicron scale. Using several common fluorescence microscopy modalities (confocal, light-sheet and 2-photon microscopy) in mouse organotypic and acute brain slices and the intact mouse brain in vivo, we demonstrate the value of this straightforward 'shadow imaging' approach by revealing neurons, microglia, tumor cells and blood capillaries together with their complete anatomical tissue contexts. In addition, we provide quantifications of perivascular spaces and the volume fraction of the extracellular space of brain tissue in vivo.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".