MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2019665807 · doi:10.1117/1.jbo.18.10.107004

Fiber-optic probe design and optical property recovery algorithm for optical biopsy of brain tissue

2013· article· en· W2019665807 on OpenAlexaff
Derek J. Cappon, Thomas J. Farrell, Qiyin Fang, Joseph E. Hayward

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biomedical Optics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOptical Imaging and Spectroscopy Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOptical fiberMaterials scienceBiopsyOpticsComputer scienceReflection (computer programming)Biomedical engineeringPhysicsMedicineRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Optical biopsy techniques offer a minimally invasive, real-time alternative to traditional biopsy and pathology during tumor resection surgery. Diffuse reflectance spectroscopy (DRS) is a commonly used technique in optical biopsy. Optical property recovery from spatially resolved DRS data allows quantification of the scattering and absorption properties of tissue. Monte Carlo simulation methods were used to evaluate a unique fiber-optic probe design for a DRS instrument to be used specifically for optical biopsy of the brain. The probe diameter was kept to a minimum to allow usage in small surgical cavities at least 1 cm in diameter. Simulations showed that the close proximity of fibers to the edge of the probe resulted in boundary effects due to reflection of photons from the surrounding air-tissue interface. A new algorithm for rapid optical property recovery was developed that accounts for this reflection and therefore overcomes these effects. The parameters of the algorithm were adjusted for use over the wide range of optical properties encountered in brain tissue, and its precision was evaluated by subjecting it to random noise. This algorithm can be adapted to work with any probe geometry to allow optical property recovery in small surgical cavities.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.618
Threshold uncertainty score0.624

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.294 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations20
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Biomedical OpticsSame topicOptical Imaging and Spectroscopy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207