Spatial localization of discrete fluorescent inclusions with early photons: an analysis on the stability with respect to variations of optical properties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We recently developed a time-domain technique for localizing in 3D discrete fluorescent inclusions embedded in a scattering medium. It exploits early photon arrival times (EPATs), that is the time of flight of early arriving photons at a detector determined via numerical constant fraction discrimination. Our localization technique requires the knowledge of the speed of propagation of diffuse light pulses in the turbid medium to convert measured propagation times to distances. We have developed an experimental method for measuring the speed of propagation of such pulses. We have shown that time differences between a reference detector position and other positions around the medium allow finding the position of the inclusion. Our technique allows localizing inclusions to millimeter precision in a thick 5 cm diameter turbid medium. Herein, we analyze the stability of EPAT differences introduced above and propagation speeds with respect to changes in the medium's optical properties for optical properties typical of biological tissues. As we target small animal imaging, we concentrate on optical properties of mouse organs and tissues. Our objective is to determine bounds to be expected on the precision that can be achieved when media properties can vary and determine the limits of validity of our localization technique. Our results show that EPAT differences and propagation speeds obtained by our approach can vary; these values depend on the medium. We study 5 kinds of mouse organs and tissues. Propagations speeds are between 2.97 × 107ms-1 and 5.52 × 107ms-1. Thus, it becomes important to evaluate the discrepancy between true geometrical distance differences and distances as obtained by our approach using a constant propagation speed and the measurement of EPAT differences. It is such discrepancies that ultimately determine the localization accuracy of our algorithm because if distance differences based on EPATs are far from true distances, our algorithm although it has a certain tolerance will have to consider that. The distance error and so the localization accuracy of our algorithm is between 2.5mm and 8.6mm.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".