Dynamic evaluation of autofocusing for automated microscopic analysis of blood smear and pap smear
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
Autofocusing is a fundamental procedure towards automated microscopic evaluation of blood smear and pap smear samples for clinical diagnosis. This paper presents comparison results of 16 selected focus algorithms based on 8000 static bright-field images and 1600 dynamic autofocusing trials using 10 blood smear and pap smear samples. Besides static behaviour, dynamic autofocusing performance is introduced for ranking the 16 focus algorithms. The Fibonacci search algorithm is employed for controlling the z-motor of the microscope to reach the focus position that is determined by focus objective functions. Experimental results demonstrate that the variance algorithm provides the best overall performance. Together with our previously reported findings, it is demonstrated that the variance algorithm or the normalized variance algorithm is the optimal focus algorithm for non-fluorescence microscopy applications including pap smear and blood smear imaging.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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