Advances in magnetic particle imaging: evaluating magnetic microspheres and optimized acquisition parameters for high sensitivity cell tracking
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction The sensitivity and resolution of magnetic particle imaging (MPI) depend on the choice of tracer and specific imaging parameters. For cell tracking applications with MPI, both the superparamagnetic iron oxide (SPIO) tracer and the cell labeling efficiency have a significant impact on MPI sensitivity and vary for different tracers. Methods This study compared three commercially available SPIO tracers (VivoTrax, Synomag-D and ProMag) and SPIO-labeled cells using magnetic particle relaxometry (MPR) and imaging. Further, the effect of imaging parameters (high and low gradient field strength and drive field amplitude) on MPI signal strength, resolution, and cell detection limits, was evaluated. Results The peak MPI signal measured by MPR was much higher for Synomag-D compared to VivoTrax and ProMag. However, the signal for intracellular Synomag-D was significantly reduced. In contrast, the signal for ProMag, a micron-sized iron oxide (MPIO) particle, was not significantly different for free and intracellular particles. The cellular iron loading was higher for ProMag compared to Synomag-D. The total MPI signal measured from images of free and intracellular SPIOs was highest for ProMag. Varying imaging parameters confirmed that a lower gradient field strength and higher drive field amplitude improved tracer and cellular sensitivity. Discussion These results, in addition to prior work from our lab, suggest that MPIOs are a good option for cell tracking with MPI. In conclusion, the evaluation of tracers by MPR is not sufficient to predict the performance of all SPIO tracers; in particular, not for larger, polymer-encapsulated iron particles such as ProMag, or for SPIO tracers internalized in cells. Improvements in MPI sensitivity through lower gradient field strength and higher drive field amplitudes are associated with a trade-off in image resolution.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".