Three-dimensional assessments are necessary to determine the true, spatially resolved composition of tissues
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Methods for spatially resolved cellular profiling of tissue sections enable in-depth study of inter- and intra-sample heterogeneity but often profile small regions, requiring evaluation of many samples to compensate for limited assessment. Recent advances in three-dimensional (3D) tissue mapping offer deeper insights; however, attempts to quantify the information gained in transitioning to 3D remains limited. Here, to compare inter- and intra-sample tissue heterogeneity, we analyze >100 pancreas samples as cores, whole-slide images (WSIs), and cm 3 -sized 3D samples. We show that tens of WSIs and hundreds of tissue microarrays are needed to approximate the compositional tissue heterogeneity of tumors. Additionally, spatial correlations of pancreatic structures decay significantly within microns, demonstrating that isolated two-dimensional (2D) sections poorly represent their surroundings. Through 3D simulations, we determined the number of slides necessary to accurately measure tumor burden. These results quantify the power of 3D mapping and establish sampling methods for biological studies prioritizing composition or incidence.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it