Performance evaluation of cylindrical fiber optic light diffusers for biomedical applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Dosimetry for intracavity and interstitial light delivery requires next to the knowledge of tissue optical properties and models describing light propagation in tissue also exact knowledge of the spatial light source emission characteristics. However, the emission characteristics of cylindrical diffusers are often ill defined by the manufacturer, and not regularly determined by the end user, thus limiting the attainable dosimetry accuracy. STUDY DESIGN/MATERIALS AND METHODS: Commercial cylindrical diffusers, with active diffusive lengths of 1-2 cm and outer diameters of </=1 mm, were evaluated regarding their photometric emission characteristics. In addition to traditional tests of homogeneity such as light intensity emitted along the diffuser length and around its circumference (polar angle), azimuth emission was also measured. RESULTS: It was demonstrated that the light emission distribution is specific to the diffuser manufacturer, and while good polar isotropy is often attained, azimuth isotropy can vary by more than a factor of 5. In hollow organs the latter can result in over treatment of tissue distal to the actual placement of the cylindrical diffusers. CONCLUSIONS: To enable light dosimetry and treatment planning for applications such as photodynamic therapy or interstitial laser hyperthermia or photocoagulation, standardization of emission properties reporting for optical fiber diffusers is required.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".