MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1675555005 · doi:10.1117/1.jbo.20.5.056008

Optical coherence tomography system requirements for clinical diagnostic middle ear imaging

2015· article· en· W1675555005 on OpenAlexafffund
Dan MacDougall, James Rainsbury, Jeremy Brown, Manohar Bance, Robert B. A. Adamson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biomedical Optics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOptical Coherence Tomography Applications
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersAtlantic Canada Opportunities Agency
KeywordsOptical coherence tomographyOssiclesMiddle earOtologyMedical imagingPreclinical imagingClinical imagingMedical physicsImage qualityComputer scienceMedicineBiomedical engineeringRadiologyComputer visionArtificial intelligencePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Noninvasive middle ear imaging using optical coherence tomography (OCT) presents some unique challenges for real-time, clinical use in humans. We present results from a two-dimensional/three-dimensional OCT system built to assess the imaging requirements of clinical middle ear imaging, and the technical challenges associated with them. These include the need to work at a low numerical aperture, the deleterious effects of transtympanic imaging on image quality at the ossicles, sensitivity requirements for clinical fidelity of images at real-time rates, and the high dynamic-range requirements of the ear. We validated the system by imaging cadaveric specimens with simulated disorders to show the clinical applicability of the images. We also provide additional insight into the likely role of OCT in clinical otology.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.003

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations29
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Biomedical OpticsSame topicOptical Coherence Tomography ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207