MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2013122527 · doi:10.4253/wjge.v5.i11.540

Imaging pancreatobiliary ductal system with optical coherence tomography: A review

2013· review· en· W2013122527 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammad Sultan Mahmud

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOptical Coherence Tomography Applications
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOptical coherence tomographyMedicineEndoscopeRadiologyDysplasiaEndoscopyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An accurate, noninvasive and cost-effective method of in situ tissue evaluation during endoscopy would be highly advantageous for the detection of dysplasia or early cancer and for identifying different disease stages. Optical coherence tomography (OCT) is a noninvasive, high-resolution (1-10 μm) emerging optical imaging method with potential for identifying microscopic subsurface features in the pancreatic and biliary ductal system. Tissue microstructure of pancreaticobiliary ductal system has been successfully imaged by inserting an OCT probe through a standard endoscope operative channel. High-resolution OCT images and the technique's endoscopic compatibility have allowed for the microstructural diagnostic of the pancreatobiliary diseases. In this review, we discussed currently available pancreaticobiliary ductal imaging systems to assess the pancreatobiliary tissue microstructure and to evaluate varieties of pancreaticobiliary disorders and diseases. Results show that OCT can improve the quality of images of pancreatobiliary system during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancheatography procedure, which may be important in distinguishing between the neoplastic and non-neoplastic lesions.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations14
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal of Gastrointestinal EndoscopySame topicOptical Coherence Tomography ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207