Enhancing Automated Mass Spectrometry Sampling with LMJ-SSP and Fisheye Camera-Based Computer Vision
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Earlier work on this project developed a software system that utilized computer vision to guide automated mass spectrometry sampling with a liquid micro-junction surface sampling probe (LMJ-SSP) mounted on a retrofitted Prusa 3D printer. However, this system struggled with accurate probe localization in 3D space, required continuous manual intervention, and was highly sensitive to small variations in image conditions. These limitations prompted the need for a more precise, robust, and fully automated sampling workflow. This research focused on refining that system, including its software, fisheye camera, and lighting setup. For new transformations, the software now requires only one checkerboard image to compute the camera’s intrinsic and extrinsic parameters and correct fisheye-induced barrel distortion. Four images of an AprilTag’s corners are then used to localize the camera, probe, base, and sample within a 3D coordinate frame. Once calibrated, users can define a region of interest (ROI) and set spatial sampling parameters such as sampling frequency. For repeated use, saved transformation profiles can be loaded and applied directly to live camera feeds. This streamlined process achieves sub-millimeter probe localization accuracy (<0.5 mm) with minimal user input. To mitigate issues with lighting variability in captured images, a standardized blue background was introduced, improving checkerboard visibility and unwarping consistency. A polling-based communication architecture was also implemented to synchronize probe actions with data collection, eliminating problems associated with temporal latency and improving the alignment between probe positions and chemical signal data. The user interface was further redesigned for flexibility across screen sizes. The updated system is a more accurate, reproducible, and user-friendly platform for histological sampling. Future work will focus on integrating conductance sampling methods and introduce a non-linear region-of-interest (ROI) selection tool.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".