MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2036829639 · doi:10.1117/12.2043654

Validation of parameter estimation methods for determining optical properties of atherosclerotic tissues in intravascular OCT

2014· article· en· W2036829639 on OpenAlexaff
Ronny Shalev, Madhusudhana Gargesha, David Prabhu, Kentaro Tanaka, Andrew M. Rollins, Marco A. Costa, Hiram G. Bezerra, Guy Lamouche, David L. Wilson

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOptical Coherence Tomography Applications
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
KeywordsEstimationComputer scienceBiomedical engineeringEngineeringSystems engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper we present a new process for assessing optical properties of tissues from 3D pullbacks, the standard clinical acquisition method for iOCT data. Our method analyzes a volume of interest (VOI) consisting of about 100 A-lines spread across the angle of rotation (&theta;) and along the artery, z. The new 3D method uses catheter correction, baseline removal, speckle noise reduction, alignment of A-line sequences, and robust estimation. We compare results to those from a more standard, “gold standard” stationary acquisition where many image frames are averaged to reduce noise. To do these studies in a controlled fashion, we use a realistic optical artery phantom containing of multiple “tissue types.” Precision and accuracy for 3D pullback analysis are reported. Our results indicate that when implementing the process on a stationary acquisition dataset, the uncertainty improves at each stage while the uncertainty is reduced. When comparing stationary acquisition dataset to pullback dataset, the values were as follows: calcium: 3.8&plusmn;1.09mm<sup>-1</sup> in stationary and 3.9±1.2 mm<sup>-1</sup> in a pullback; lipid: 11.025&plusmn;0.417 mm<sup>-1</sup> in stationary and 11.27&plusmn;0.25 mm<sup>-1</sup> in pullback; fibrous: 6.08&plusmn;1.337 mm<sup>-1</sup> in stationary and 5.58&plusmn;2.0 mm<sup>-1</sup>. These results indicates that the process presented in this paper introduce minimal bias and only a small change in uncertainty when comparing a stationary and pullback dataset, thus paves the way to a highly accurate clinical plaque type discrimination, enabling automatic classification.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.420
Threshold uncertainty score0.974

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.245 · 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
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

Citations2
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicOptical Coherence Tomography ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207