MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1971901833 · doi:10.1117/1.3523616

Quantification of in vivo fluorescence decoupled from the effects of tissue optical properties using fiber-optic spectroscopy measurements

2010· article· en· W1971901833 on OpenAlexafffund
Anthony Kim, Mamta Khurana, Yumi Moriyama, Brian C. Wilson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biomedical Optics · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOptical Imaging and Spectroscopy Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkOntario Institute for Cancer ResearchUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of California, IrvineNational Institutes of HealthNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeOntario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care
KeywordsProtoporphyrin IXFluorescenceIn vivoMaterials scienceFluorescence spectroscopyOptical fiberDiffuse reflectance infrared fourier transformFluorescence-lifetime imaging microscopyAbsorption (acoustics)Ex vivoBiomedical engineeringIn situNuclear magnetic resonanceOpticsChemistryMedicineBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present a method for tissue fluorescence quantification in situ using a handheld fiber optic probe that measures both the fluorescence and diffuse reflectance spectra. A simplified method to decouple the fluorescence spectrum from distorting effects of the tissue optical absorption and scattering is developed, with the objective of accurately quantifying the fluorescence in absolute units. The primary motivation is measurement of 5-aminolevulinic acid-induced protoporphyrin IX (ALA-PpIX) concentration in tissue during fluorescence-guided resection of malignant brain tumors. This technique is validated in phantoms and ex vivo mouse tissues, and tested in vivo in a rabbit brain tumor model using ALA-PpIX fluorescence contrast.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
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)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.296 · 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

Citations171
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Biomedical OpticsSame topicOptical Imaging and Spectroscopy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207