MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2015834020 · doi:10.1109/acc.2006.1657593

Online tuning for retinal imaging adaptive optics systems

2006· article· en· W2015834020 on OpenAlexaff
Maurizio Ficocelli, Foued Ben Amara

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOphthalmology and Visual Impairment Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdaptive opticsDeformable mirrorComputer scienceCompensation (psychology)Controller (irrigation)Human eyeRetinaRetinalControl theory (sociology)OpticsComputer visionArtificial intelligencePhysicsControl (management)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The imaging of the retina tissue in the back of the eye is important for a number of applications, such the early detection of eye disease. Adaptive optics systems are being increasingly used to provide clear images of the retina tissue by compensating for the eye's optical imperfections, also referred to as aberrations. Although current retinal imaging adaptive optics systems can compensate for some aberrations in the human eye, they are still unable to compensate for the unknown and time-varying higher order aberrations. This paper presents a control system design approach that allows the adaptive optics system to compensate for the unknown time-varying aberrations. The compensation for the aberrations is achieved by adjusting the shape of a deformable mirror in the adaptive optics system. Hence, the control problem addressed in this paper is that of tracking an unknown and time-varying desired shape for the membrane mirror. The proposed controller design method relies on tuning, online, a Q-parameterized stabilizing controller in such a way that the tuned controller converges to the desired controller needed to achieve regulation. The resulting system will allow for improved retinal images to be taken, resulting in the early detection of eye diseases

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.310 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations4
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicOphthalmology and Visual Impairment StudiesFrench-language works237,207