Optical design of a line-focused forward-viewing scanner for optical coherence tomography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We report an optical design of a line-focused forward-viewing optical coherence tomography (OCT) scanner for high-speed endoscopic imaging. To avoid a complex lens system, an off-axis cylindrical mirror is used for focusing the line illumination onto the sample surface. Because of its insensitivity to the broadband spectrum, the mirror-focused scanner improves the image quality compared to a lens-focused scanner. In this work, a feasibility study is carried out on the use of a reflective-optics-focused line scanner in OCT imaging, instead of the traditional refractive optics scanner. The Strehl ratio, chromatic focal shift, and field analysis were carried out for a plano-convex cylindrical lens, an achromatic cylindrical lens, and a cylindrical-mirror-focused scanner. ZEMAX optical modeling analysis showed that mirror-focused scanning provides better Strehl ratio in comparison to plano-convex cylindrical-lens-focused scanning, and that the Strehl ratio is comparable to achromatic cylindrical-lens-focused scanning. However, field analysis on the edges of the scanning elements within the scan range shows that mirror-focused scanning is more robust when compared to a cylindrical achromatic lens. Overall, a mirror-focused scanner shows better performance compared to lenses.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".