MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1518103580 · doi:10.1088/0031-9155/46/9/306

Light dosimetry using the P3 approximation.

2001· article· en· W1518103580 on OpenAlexaff
Dwayne J. Dickey, Ronald B. Moore, David C. Rayner, J. Tulip

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics in Medicine and Biology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOptical Imaging and Spectroscopy Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImaging phantomRadianceOpticsPlane wavePhysicsGeometryMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In earlier work, we demonstrated that radiance, calculated using the P3 approximation in a plane wave geometry, could be used to accurately predict the optical parameters of an Intralipid/methylene blue phantom. Plane wave geometry is impractical for clinical use but the results of this work encouraged us to further develop the P3 approximation for a spherical geometry, described in this paper. Radiance predicted by this model for a defined Intralipid/methylene blue phantom was compared with radiance measured in this phantom. The results demonstrate that the spherical derivation of the P3 approximation will reproducibly predict optical parameters of a tissue phantom as effectively as the slab geometry derivation of the P3 approximation. In a similar protocol, the P3 approximation was used to estimate the optical parameters of ex vivo human prostate. Radiance in this case was measured in the prostate samples using an after loading technique. Three prostate samples tested were found to be surprisingly optically homogeneous. The after loading protocol described in this paper could form the basis of a minimally invasive and effective clinical method to optically characterize human prostate.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.183
GPT teacher head0.445
Teacher spread0.262 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations34
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics in Medicine and BiologySame topicOptical Imaging and Spectroscopy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207