Rapid Volumetric OCT Image Acquisition Using Compressive Sampling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Acquiring three dimensional image volumes with techniques such as Optical Coherence Tomography (OCT) relies on reconstructing the tissue layers based on reflection of light from tissue interfaces. One B-mode scan in an image is acquired by scanning and concatenating several A-mode scans, and several contiguous slices are acquired to assemble a full 3D image volume. In this work, we demonstrate how Compressive Sampling (CS) can be used to accurately reconstruct 3D OCT images with minimal quality degradation from a subset of the original image. The full 3D image is reconstructed from sparsely sampled data by exploiting the sparsity of the image in a carefully chosen transform domain. We use several sub-sampling schemes, recover the full 3D image using CS, and show that there is negligible effect on clinically relevant morphometric measurements of the optic nerve head in the recovered image. The potential outcome of this work is a significant reduction in OCT image acquisition time, with possible extensions to speeding up acquisition in other imaging modalities such as ultrasound and MRI.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".