MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2045207186 · doi:10.1117/1.jbo.18.5.050901

Review of speckle and phase variance optical coherence tomography to visualize microvascular networks

2013· review· en· W2045207186 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biomedical Optics · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOptical Coherence Tomography Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health NetworkToronto Metropolitan University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMicroangiographyOptical coherence tomographyComputer scienceSpeckle patternVariance (accounting)Coherence (philosophical gambling strategy)Artificial intelligenceOpticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

High-resolution mapping of microvasculature has been applied to diverse body systems, including the retinal and choroidal vasculature, cardiac vasculature, the central nervous system, and various tumor models. Many imaging techniques have been developed to address specific research questions, and each has its own merits and drawbacks. Understanding, optimization, and proper implementation of these imaging techniques can significantly improve the data obtained along the spectrum of unique research projects to obtain diagnostic clinical information. We describe the recently developed algorithms and applications of two general classes of microvascular imaging techniques: speckle-variance and phase-variance optical coherence tomography (OCT). We compare and contrast their performance with Doppler OCT and optical microangiography. In addition, we highlight ongoing work in the development of variance-based techniques to further refine the characterization of microvascular networks.

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 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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.929
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.305 · 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