Search for: All records

Atomic force microscopy (AFM) provides a platform for high-resolution topographical imaging and the mechanical characterization of a wide range of samples, including live cells, proteins, and other biomolecules. AFM is also instrumental for measuring interaction forces and binding kinetics for protein–protein or receptor–ligand interactions on live cells at a single-molecule level. However, performing force measurements and high-resolution imaging with AFM and data analytics are time-consuming and require special skill sets and continuous human supervision. Recently, researchers have explored the applications of artificial intelligence (AI) and deep learning (DL) in the bioimaging field. However, the applications of AI to AFM operations for live-cell characterization are little-known. In this work, we implemented a DL framework to perform automatic sample selection based on the cell shape for AFM probe navigation during AFM biomechanical mapping. We also established a closed-loop scanner trajectory control for measuring multiple cell samples at high speed for automated navigation. With this, we achieved a 60× speed-up in AFM navigation and reduced the time involved in searching for the particular cell shape in a large sample. Our innovation directly applies to many bio-AFM applications with AI-guided intelligent automation through image data analysis together with smart navigation. 

Estimating a patient‐specific computational model's parameters relies on data that is often unreliable and ill‐suited for a deterministic approach. We develop an optimization‐based uncertainty quantification framework for probabilistic model tuning that discovers model inputs distributions that generate target output distributions. Probabilistic sampling is performed using a surrogate model for computational efficiency, and a general distribution parameterization is used to describe each input. The approach is tested on seven patient‐specific modeling examples using CircAdapt, a cardiovascular circulatory model. Six examples are synthetic, aiming to match the output distributions generated using known reference input data distributions, while the seventh example uses real‐world patient data for the output distributions. Our results demonstrate the accurate reproduction of the target output distributions, with a correct recreation of the reference inputs for the six synthetic examples. Our proposed approach is suitable for determining the parameter distributions of patient‐specific models with uncertain data and can be used to gain insights into the sensitivity of the model parameters to the measured data.