ArticleBiophysical reports2026
Single-cell vibration analysis for potential diagnostic applications.
Article in Biophysical reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Vibrational frequency profiling (VFP) using optical tweezers has emerged as a promising technique to characterize single-cell behavior for diagnostic applications. These applications include cancer screening, identifying bacterial resistance to antibiotics, and assessing cellular response to metabolic treatments. Previously, we demonstrated that vibrational profiling can successfully differentiate samples in real time using single-cell vibrational signatures. However, the sensitivity of this approach and its ability to be applied across variable experimental conditions and cell lines have not been well identified. This study builds on previous work, demonstrating the feasibility of our established vibrational analysis to quantitively assess whether changes in experimental design can improve model separation of different cell types. U251 human glioblastoma cells and A549 human lung carcinoma cells were used as our model system. We illustrate this capability through three examples: 1) comparing an open Petri dish to closed microfluidic chambers, 2) synchronizing cells in the cell cycle, and 3) altering medium viscosity. These factors were selected for their potential to influence signal quality and model accuracy. Vibrations were collected using optical tweezers, were Fourier transformed to produce power spectra, and were then parameterized using peak detection, extracting area under the curve values. Peaks were aggregated across samples and classified using partial least squares discriminant analysis. Partial least squares discriminant analysis classification was performed with 70/30 train-test splits of data and 10-fold cross-validation. Petri-dishes yielded a more well-classified sample than microfluidics chambers (F1 score 0.89 vs. 0.79). Synchronized cells reduced vibrational variability and improved classification (F1 score 0.83 vs. 0.79). Increased viscosity produced slight classifier improvements (F1 score 0.81 vs. 0.79). These findings demonstrate that VFPs are sensitive to the mechanical and environmental context of cell measurement, highlighting that careful standardization of experimental conditions is crucial for developing reproducible and clinically translatable VFP-based diagnostic platforms.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.