MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Cell‐Based Light Interaction Model for Human Blood

2012· article· en· W1988627290 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel Yim, Gladimir V. G. Baranoski, Bailey Kimmel, Terry Chen, Erik Miranda

Bibliographic record

VenueComputer Graphics Forum · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputer Graphics and Visualization Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceCorrectnessRendering (computer graphics)VisualizationBiological systemArtificial intelligenceOrientation (vector space)Computer visionBiologyAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The development of predictive appearance models for organic tissues is a challenging task due to the inherent complexity of these materials. In this paper, we closely examine the biophysical processes responsible for the appearance attributes of whole blood, one the most fundamental of these materials. We describe a new appearance model that simulates the mechanisms of light propagation and absorption within the cellular and fluid portions of this specialized tissue. The proposed model employs a comprehensive, and yet flexible first principles approach based on the morphological, optical and biochemical properties of blood cells. This approach allows for environment driven changes in the cells' anatomy and orientation to be appropriately included into the light transport simulations. The correctness and predictive capabilities of the proposed model are quantitatively and qualitatively evaluated through comparisons of modeled results with actual measured data and experimental observations reported in the scientific literature. Its incorporation into rendering systems is illustrated through images of blood samples depicting appearance variations controlled by physiologically meaningful parameters. Besides the contributions to the modeling of material appearance, the research presented in this paper is also expected to have applications in a wide range of biomedical areas, from optical diagnostics to the visualization and noninvasive imaging of blood‐perfused tissues.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.305
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

Citations37
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComputer Graphics ForumSame topicComputer Graphics and Visualization TechniquesFrench-language works237,207