MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2038806375 · doi:10.1364/ao.45.002101

Information content of point radiance measurements in turbid media: implications for interstitial optical property quantification

2006· article· en· W2038806375 on OpenAlexaff
Lee Chin, William M. Whelan, I. Alex Vitkin

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Optics · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOptical Imaging and Spectroscopy Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoOntario Institute for Cancer Research
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRadianceUniquenessOpticsProperty (philosophy)Point (geometry)PhysicsComputer scienceRemote sensingMathematicsMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Motivated by a recent report by Dickey et al. [Phys. Med. Biol. 46, 2359 (2001)], who demonstrated optical property retrieval by using relative radiance measurements at a single position, we investigate the uniqueness of relative radiance measurements for quantifying the optical properties of turbid media by studying the solutions of the diffusion and P3 approximations of the Boltzmann transfer equation for a point source. Using the P3 approximation, we investigate the potential of radiance measurements for optical property recovery by examining the optical property response surface for point radiance information. We further derive first-order similarity relations for relative point radiance measurements and use these expressions to examine analytically the effects of noise on optical property retrieval over a wide range of optical properties typical of biological tissue. Finally, optimal experimental configurations are studied and explicit conditions for uniqueness derived that suggest potential strategies for improving optical property recovery. It is expected that point radiance measurements will prove valuable for both on-line treatment planning of minimally invasive laser therapies and optical characterization of tissues.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.663
Threshold uncertainty score0.306

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Citations20
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied OpticsSame topicOptical Imaging and Spectroscopy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207