Eliminating the effect of bulk scattering when measuring skin surface roughness using speckle contrast: a skin phantom study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We have been investigating the quantification of skin surface roughness by polychromatic speckle contrast. Speckle contrast, being a measure of light coherence, decreases as coherence decays when low coherent light is reflected from a rough surface. The main constraint of applying the technique to skin is the presence of bulk scattering along with surface reflection. Bulk scattering also decays coherence and is a source of noise. To examine the effect of bulk contribution, we studied speckle patterns generated by silicone phantoms with controllable roughness and optical parameters in the range of human skin. We discovered that using the theoretical curve plotting speckle contrast vs. surface roughness as a calibration curve overestimates the phantom surface roughness. We propose to use the effective calibration curve for the proper skin roughness measurements. The effective calibration curve was obtained experimentally taking the advantage of its weak dependence on phantom's attenuation coefficients.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".