Bibliographic record
Abstract
The prescribed radiant exposures for photodynamic therapy (PDT) of superficial skin cancers are chosen empirically to maximize the success of the treatment while minimizing adverse reactions for the majority of patients. They do not take into account the wide range of tissue optical properties for human skin, contributing to relatively low treatment success rates. Additionally, treatment times can be unnecessarily long for large treatment areas if the laser power is not sufficient. Both of these concerns can be addressed by the incorporation of an integrating sphere into the irradiation apparatus. The light fluence rate can be increased by as much as 100%, depending on the tissue optical properties. This improvement can be determined in advance of treatment by measuring the reflectance from the tissue through a side port on the integrating sphere, allowing for patient-specific treatment times. The sphere is also effective at improving beam flatness, and reducing the penumbra, creating a more uniform light field. The side port reflectance measurements are also related to the tissue transport albedo, enabling an approximation of the penetration depth, which is useful for real-time light dosimetry.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".