MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392387883 · doi:10.1136/jcp-2023-209361

Rapid microdissection of tissue sections via laser ablation

2024· article· en· W4392387883 on OpenAlexafffund
Robin Coope, Stephen Pleasance, Pawan Pandoh, Colin Schlosser, Richard Corbett, Marco A. Marra

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Pathology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMolecular Biology Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaCanada's Michael Smith Genome Sciences Centre
FundersTerry Fox Research InstituteGenome British ColumbiaGenome Canada
KeywordsMicrodissectionLaser capture microdissectionAblationLaserLaser ablationBiomedical engineeringMaterials scienceBiologyPathologyMedicineOpticsGeneGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We demonstrate a method for tissue microdissection using scanning laser ablation that is approximately two orders of magnitude faster than conventional laser capture microdissection. Our novel approach uses scanning laser optics and a slide coating under the tissue that can be excited by the laser to selectively eject regions of tissue for further processing. Tissue was dissected at 0.117 s/mm 2 without reduction in yield, sequencing insert size or base quality compared with undissected tissue. From eight cases, 58–416 mm 2 of tissue was obtained from one to four slides in 7–48 seconds total dissection time per case. These samples underwent exome sequencing and we found the variant allelic fraction increased in regions enriched for tumour as expected. This suggests that our ablation technique may be useful as a tool in both clinical and research labs.

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)0.001
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.364 · 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
GenreMethods

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
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical PathologySame topicMolecular Biology Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207