MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2027913771 · doi:10.1117/1.3425654

Virtual four-dimensional imaging of lung parenchyma by optical coherence tomography in mice

2010· article· en· W2027913771 on OpenAlexaff
Sven Meißner, Arata Tabuchi, Michael Mertens, Wolfgang M. Kuebler, Edmund Koch

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biomedical Optics · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOptical Coherence Tomography Applications
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
KeywordsLungOptical coherence tomographyParenchymaMedicineVentilation (architecture)PathologyTomographyX-ray microtomographyNuclear medicineBiomedical engineeringRadiologyInternal medicinePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this feasibility study, we present a method for virtual 4-D imaging of healthy and injured subpleural lung tissue in the ventilated mouse. We use triggered swept source optical coherence tomography (OCT) with an A-scan frequency of 20 kHz to image murine subpleural alveoli during the inspiratory phase. The data acquisition is gated to the ventilation pressure to take single B-scans in each respiration cycle for different pressure levels. The acquired B-scans are combined off-line into one volume scan for each pressure level. The air fraction in healthy lungs and injured lungs is measured using 2-D OCT en-face images. Upon lung inspiration from 2 to 12 cm H(2)O ventilation pressure, the air fraction increases in healthy lungs by up to 11% and in injured lungs by 8%. This expansion correlates well with results of previous studies, reporting increased alveolar area with increased ventilation pressures. We demonstrate that OCT is a useful tool to investigate alveolar dynamics in spatial dimensions.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.225 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations21
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Biomedical OpticsSame topicOptical Coherence Tomography ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207