Limiting factors to the OCT axial resolution for in-vivo imaging of human and rodent retina in the 1060nm wavelength range
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A computational model was developed to evaluate the limitations to the highest axial resolution, achievable with ultrahigh resolution optical coherence tomography (UHROCT) in the 1060 nm wavelength region for in-vivo imaging of the human and rodent retina. The model considers parameters such as the wavelength dependent water absorption, the average length of the human and rodent eyes, and the power limitations for the imaging beam as defined in the ANSI standard. A custom-built light source with re-shaped spectrum was used to verify experimentally the results from the computational model. Axial OCT resolution of 4.2 microm and 7.7 microm was measured from a mirror reflection with the custom light source by propagating the imaging beam through water cells with 5 mm and 25 mm thickness, corresponding to the average axial length of the rodent and human eye respectively. Assuming an average refractive index of 1.38 for retinal tissue, the expected axial OCT resolution in the rodent and human retina is 3 microm and 5.7 microm respectively. Retinal tomograms acquired in-vivo from the rat eye with the modified light source show clear visualization of all intraretinal layers, as well as a network of capillaries (approximately 10 microm in diameter) in the inner- and outer plexiform layers of the retina.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it