MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1969900212 · doi:10.1364/boe.1.000512

Algorithms for bioluminescence tomography incorporating anatomical information and reconstruction of tissue optical properties

2010· article· en· W1969900212 on OpenAlexafffund
Mohamed A. Naser, Michael S. Patterson

Bibliographic record

VenueBiomedical Optics Express · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOptical Imaging and Spectroscopy Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersOntario Ministry of Research and Innovation
KeywordsDiffuse optical imagingTomographyA priori and a posterioriOpticsIterative reconstructionAlgorithmComputer scienceReconstruction algorithmOptical tomographyAttenuation coefficientWavelengthTaylor seriesInverse problemPhysicsComputer visionMathematicsMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reconstruction algorithms are presented for a two-step solution of the bioluminescence tomography (BLT) problem. In the first step, a priori anatomical information provided by x-ray computed tomography or by other methods is used to solve the continuous wave (cw) diffuse optical tomography (DOT) problem. A Taylor series expansion approximates the light fluence rate dependence on the optical properties of each region where first and second order direct derivatives of the light fluence rate with respect to scattering and absorption coefficients are obtained and used for the reconstruction. In the second step, the reconstructed optical properties at different wavelengths are used to calculate the Green's function of the system. Then an iterative minimization solution based on the L1 norm shrinks the permissible regions where the sources are allowed by selecting points with higher probability to contribute to the source distribution. This provides an efficient BLT reconstruction algorithm with the ability to determine relative source magnitudes and positions in the presence of noise.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.271 · 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

Citations47
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiomedical Optics ExpressSame topicOptical Imaging and Spectroscopy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207