A Comparison of the Sensitivity and Cellular Detection Capabilities of Magnetic Particle Imaging and Bioluminescence Imaging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Preclinical cell tracking is enhanced with a multimodal imaging approach. Bioluminescence imaging (BLI) is a highly sensitive optical modality that relies on engineering cells to constitutively express a luciferase gene. Magnetic particle imaging (MPI) is a newer imaging modality that directly detects superparamagnetic iron oxide (SPIO) particles used to label cells. Here, we compare BLI and MPI for imaging cells in vitro and in vivo. METHODS: Mouse 4T1 breast carcinoma cells were transduced to express firefly luciferase, labeled with SPIO (ProMag), and imaged as cell samples after subcutaneous injection into mice. RESULTS: For cell samples, the BLI and MPI signals were strongly correlated with cell number. Both modalities presented limitations for imaging cells in vivo. For BLI, weak signal penetration, signal attenuation, and scattering prevented the detection of cells for mice with hair and for cells far from the tissue surface. For MPI, background signals obscured the detection of low cell numbers due to the limited dynamic range, and cell numbers could not be accurately quantified from in vivo images. CONCLUSIONS: It is important to understand the shortcomings of these imaging modalities to develop strategies to improve cellular detection sensitivity.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".