MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2045490091 · doi:10.1364/ol.39.003472

Speckle statistics in OCT images: Monte Carlo simulations and experimental studies

2014· article· en· W2045490091 on OpenAlexafffund
Mikhail Kirillin, Golnaz Farhat, Ekaterina Sergeeva, Michael C. Kolios, I. Alex Vitkin

Bibliographic record

VenueOptics Letters · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOptical Coherence Tomography Applications
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan UniversityUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMinistry of Education and Science of the Russian FederationRussian Foundation for Basic Research
KeywordsSpeckle patternMonte Carlo methodOptical coherence tomographyOpticsCoherence (philosophical gambling strategy)Speckle noiseSpeckle imagingImage processingComputer sciencePhysicsStatisticsArtificial intelligenceImage (mathematics)Mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The speckle pattern of an optical coherence tomography (OCT) image carries potentially useful sample information that may assist in tissue characterization. Recent biomedical results in vivo indicate that the distribution of signal intensities within an OCT tissue image is well described by a log-normal-like (Gamma) function. To fully understand and exploit this finding, an OCT Monte Carlo model that accounts for speckle effects was developed. The resultant Monte Carlo speckle statistics predictions agree well with experimental OCT results from a series of control phantoms with variable scattering properties; the Gamma distribution provides a good fit to the theoretical and experimental results. The ability to quantify subresolution tissue features via OCT speckle analysis may prove useful in diagnostic photomedicine.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations61
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOptics LettersSame topicOptical Coherence Tomography ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207