MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2060581645 · doi:10.1364/oe.17.015228

Development and characterization of an omni-directional photoacoustic point source for calibration of a staring 3D photoacoustic imaging system

2009· article· en· W2060581645 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Roumeliotis, Pinhas Ephrat, John Patrick, Jeffrey J. L. Carson

Bibliographic record

VenueOptics Express · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPhotoacoustic and Ultrasonic Imaging
Canadian institutionsSt Joseph's Health CareLawson Health Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOpticsCalibrationMaterials scienceAzimuthTransducerPoint sourceIterative reconstructionPhysicsAcousticsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Photoacoustic imaging is a modality which makes use of the contrast provided by optical imaging techniques and the spatial resolution and penetration depth similar to acoustic imaging modalities. We have developed a method for fast 3D photoacoustic imaging using a sparse hemispherical array of transducers. Such a system requires characterization of the transducer's response to an ideal point source in order to accurately reconstruct objects in the imaging volume. First, an attempt was made to design an ideal photoacoustic point source via a combination of liquids which would appropriately scatter and absorb the light such that a spherical distribution was achieved. Methylene blue (MB(+)) was used as the primary optical absorber while Intralipid (IL) was used as the liquid responsible for the optical scatter. A multitude of combinations were tested and the signal uniformity was characterized. The combination of 200 microM MB(+) and 0.09% IL was found to produce the most uniform signal over the range of transducers in the hemispherical array. The liquid source was then characterized over a broader range of azimuthal and zenith angles where it was shown the azimuthal consistency was much greater than the stability seen in different zenith elevations. The source was then used in a calibration scan for an imaging volume of 40 x 40 x 40 mm(3). At 216 points evenly spaced in the imaging volume, parameters were recorded for signal amplitude, width, and time-of-flight. These calibration parameters could then be applied to an iterative reconstruction algorithm in an attempt to more accurately produce images.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.646
Threshold uncertainty score0.782

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.191 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations20
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOptics ExpressSame topicPhotoacoustic and Ultrasonic ImagingFrench-language works237,207