Quantitative Evaluation of Transform Domains for Compressive Sampling-Based Recovery of Sparsely Sampled Volumetric OCT Images
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently, compressive sampling has received significant attention as an emerging technique for rapid volumetric imaging. We have previously investigated volumetric optical coherence tomography (OCT) image acquisition using compressive sampling techniques and showed that it was possible to recover image volumes from a subset of sampled images. Our previous findings used the multidimensional wavelet transform as the domain of sparsification for recovering OCT image volumes. In this report, we analyzed and compared the potential and efficiency of three other image transforms to reconstruct the same volumetric OCT image. Two quantitative measures, the mean square error and the structural similarity index, were applied to compare the quality of the reconstructed volumetric images. We observed that fast Fourier transformation and wavelet both are capable of reconstructing OCT image volumes for the orthogonal sparse sampling masks used in this report, but with different merits.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it