MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1998099743 · doi:10.1364/oe.16.021570

Four-dimensional photoacoustic imaging of moving targets

2008· article· en· W1998099743 on OpenAlexaff
Pinhas Ephrat, Michael Roumeliotis, Frank S. Prato, Jeffrey J. L. Carson

Bibliographic record

VenueOptics Express · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPhotoacoustic and Ultrasonic Imaging
Canadian institutionsSt Joseph's Health CareLawson Health Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOpticsFrame ratePhotoacoustic Doppler effectMaterials sciencePhotoacoustic imaging in biomedicineImage resolutionTracking (education)Penetration depthComputer visionComputer sciencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Photoacoustic imaging provides optical contrast with improved tissue penetration and spatial resolution compared to pure optical techniques. Three-dimensional photoacoustic imaging is particularly advantageous for visualizing non-planar light absorbing structures, such as blood vessels, internal organs or tumours. We have developed a fast 3-D photoacoustic imaging system for small animal research based on a sparse array of ultrasonic detectors and iterative image reconstruction. The system can acquire 3-D images with a single laser-shot at a frame rate of 10 Hz. To demonstrate the imaging capabilities we have constructed phantoms made of a scanning point source and a rotating line object and imaged them at a rate of 10 frames per second. The resulting 4-D photoacoustic images depicted well the motion of each target. Comparison of the perceived motion in the images with the known velocity of the target showed good agreement. To our knowledge, this is the first report of single-shot high frame-rate 3-D photoacoustic imaging system. With further developments, this system could bring to bear its inherent speed for applications in small animal research, such as motion tracking of tumour outline during respiration, and rapid monitoring of contrast agent kinetics.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.560
Threshold uncertainty score0.777

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations29
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOptics ExpressSame topicPhotoacoustic and Ultrasonic ImagingFrench-language works237,207