MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2045004933 · doi:10.1088/0031-9155/48/21/001

The use of spatially resolved fluorescence and reflectance to determine interface depth in layered fluorophore distributions

2003· article· en· W2045004933 on OpenAlexaff
Dragana Stasic, Thomas J. Farrell, Michael S. Patterson

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics in Medicine and Biology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOptical Imaging and Spectroscopy Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityHamilton Regional Laboratory Medicine Program
FundersNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsFluorophoreMonte Carlo methodFluorescenceMaterials scienceAbsorption (acoustics)DiffusionOpticsReflectivityDiffuse reflectionInterface (matter)Photon diffusionDiffuse reflectance infrared fourier transformChemistryLayer (electronics)PhysicsMathematicsNanotechnology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The possibility of using spatially resolved fluorescence and reflectance measurements to recover tissue optical properties, fluorophore concentration and the thickness of a superficial layer in a two-layer geometry was investigated. A diffusion theory model was used to fit reflectance and fluorescence data generated using Monte Carlo simulations or experimentally obtained using tissue-simulating phantoms. Initial analysis fitting diffusion theory generated data suggested that it should be possible to recover all parameters from a single set of spatially resolved fluorescence and reflectance measurements. However, when Monte Carlo or experimental data were fitted the results were less impressive. Overall, it was shown that there is a strong coupling between interface depth, fluorophore concentration and tissue absorption, especially at larger depths. The recovery of all input parameters from a single set of spatially resolved measurements was limited to interface depths less than 3 mm, which is a reasonable range for measuring fluorophore in skin. When the tissue optical properties and fluorophore concentrations were known, then the interface depth could be monitored with good accuracy in simulated serial measurements. These results may also point to deficiencies in the diffusion theory model that introduce significant errors in the fitted results.

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)0.001
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 score0.093
Threshold uncertainty score0.234

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.214
GPT teacher head0.427
Teacher spread0.213 · 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

Citations18
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics in Medicine and BiologySame topicOptical Imaging and Spectroscopy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207