MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2040783385 · doi:10.1117/12.428134

<title>Comparison of near-infrared spectroscopy with CT cerebral blood flow measurements in newborn piglets</title>

2001· article· en· W2040783385 on OpenAlexafffund
Derek W. Brown, Paul A. Picot, Roger Springett, David T. Delpy, Ting‐Yim Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOptical Imaging and Spectroscopy Techniques
Canadian institutionsSt Joseph's Health CentreWestern University
FundersLawson Health Research Institute
KeywordsCerebral blood flowBlood flowNear-infrared spectroscopySpectrometerAnesthesiaMedicineNuclear medicineBiomedical engineeringNuclear magnetic resonancePhysicsCardiologyOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Severely premature infants are often at high risk of cerebral hemorrhage or ischemic injury due to their inability to properly regulate blood flow to the brain. If blood flow is too high, the infant is at risk of cerebral hemorrhage, while too little blood flow can result in ischemic injury. The purpose of this research is to design and develop a means of non-invasively measuring cerebral blood flow (CBF) with near infrared spectroscopy (NIRS). Such a device would greatly aid the diagnosis and monitoring of afflicted infants. Previous attempts to measure CBF with NIRS have achieved limited success. In this study we acquired high signal-to-noise NIR spectrum from 600 to 980 nm with a cooled CCD spectrometer. This spectrometer enables the differential path length factor (DPF) to be estimated with accuracy using a second derivative technique described by Matcher et al. The validity of our new approach is determined via direct comparison with a previously validated computed tomography (CT) method. Three newborn piglets were studied. CBF measurements were performed at various partial arterial CO<SUB>2</SUB> tensions (PaCO<SUB>2</SUB>) using both the NIRS and CT methods. The results of the two methods correlate well with a relationship of CBF<SUB>CT</SUB> equals -4.30 + 1.05 CBF<SUB>NIRS</SUB> (r<SUP>2</SUP> equals 0.96).

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.484
Threshold uncertainty score0.691

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Citations4
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicOptical Imaging and Spectroscopy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207