MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1888045503 · doi:10.1109/ultsym.1990.171612

Ultrasound backscatter microscopy of the eye in vivo

2002· article· en· W1888045503 on OpenAlexaff
F. Stuart Foster, Charles J. Pavlin, B.G. Starkoski, Kasia Harasiewicz

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Symposium on Ultrasonics · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPhotoacoustic and Ultrasonic Imaging
Canadian institutionsOntario Institute for Cancer Research
FundersNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsIRIS (biosensor)Ciliary bodyUltrasoundCorneaScleraBiomedical engineeringFrame rateBackscatter (email)ScannerMicroscopyMicroscopeMaterials scienceUltrasound biomicroscopyOpticsMedicineComputer scienceOphthalmologyComputer visionRadiologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The construction and early clinical evaluation of the first 50-100-MHz ultrasound backscatter microscope (UBM) are described. This system has a frame rate of five frames per second and examined a field of view of 4 by 4 mm with axial and lateral resolution ranging from 20 to 50 mu m. The critical components of the scanner are described, including the transducer, motion system, and scan converter. Clinical studies were performed on 40 patients with varied ocular pathology. Each patient was examined with UBM using a water-bath technique similar to that used in conventional eye ultrasound. Microscopic images of the normal structures of the anterior segment including the cornea, iris, Schlemm's canal, ciliary body, and sclera are shown. Contrasting images of corneal pathology, tumors of the iris and ciliary body, and angle closure demonstrate the exceptional measurement capabilities of this imaging method. The potential of the UBM as a practical clinical instrument is discussed.>

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations7
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Symposium on UltrasonicsSame topicPhotoacoustic and Ultrasonic ImagingFrench-language works237,207