Near‐Infrared Spectroscopy, In Vivo Tissue Analysis by
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In vivo near‐infrared (NIR) spectroscopy has the potential of becoming an important tool in a number of areas in clinical medicine. Technological developments in photonics that have been spurred on by the communication revolution have set the stage for rapid advancement of optical and NIR spectroscopy based on noninvasive or minimally invasive medical diagnostic techniques. The goal of this article is to review the current capabilities and limitations of in vivo NIR spectroscopy and highlight the impact of these capabilities and limitations in selected areas where NIR spectroscopy is being used to address clinical problems. The optical properties of tissues are briefly reviewed, as are the instrumental methods available to the experimentalist. These properties and methods largely dictate the feasibility of an in vivo spectroscopic diagnostic approach and constrain the scope of problems that can be tackled using optical–NIR spectroscopy. Some of the more successful applications are described, including studies of tissue oxygenation, ischemia, and viability. A number of factors that can confound interpretation of in vivo NIR results are discussed. The number and magnitude of confounding influences that arise in in vivo spectroscopy can be daunting to the experimentalist and may represent the largest barrier in transforming in vivo spectroscopic measurements into clinically meaningful and reliable information. In vivo NIR spectroscopy abounds with opportunity and challenge.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.039 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it