MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2060602203 · doi:10.1134/s1054660x11190285

Can temporal analysis of optical coherence tomography statistics report on dextrorotatory-glucose levels in blood?

2011· article· en· W2060602203 on OpenAlexaff
Hafeez Ullah, Adrian Mariampillai, Manzoor Ikram, I. Alex Vitkin

Bibliographic record

VenueLaser Physics · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOptical Coherence Tomography Applications
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan UniversityUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of TorontoOntario Institute for Cancer Research
FundersHigher Education Commision, PakistanHigher Education Commission, Pakistan
KeywordsOptical coherence tomographyImaging phantomMaterials scienceViscosityBiomedical engineeringDiffusionOpticsDecorrelationCoherence (philosophical gambling strategy)ChemistryBiophysicsPhysicsMathematicsBiologyMedicineStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We report the use of optical coherence tomography (OCT) for measuring dextrorotatory-glucose (D-glucose) in liquid phantoms and in drawn blood based on temporal dynamics of light scattering. The presence of D-glucose alters the medium viscosity, thus affecting the Brownian motion of the scatterers (polystyrene microspheres (PMS) in phantoms, red blood cells (RBCs) in blood) as measured by OCT. To quantify the effect, the signal autocorrelation functions were measured from M-mode OCT data and exponentially fit to obtain the decorrelation times. These were then related to translational (and rotational, in case of asymmetric scatterers) diffusion coefficients which enabled the determination of D-glucose-controlled medium viscosity. Obtained viscosily values agreed well with the literature, and showed expected increase with D-glucose concentrations. Whole blood smears were imaged with microscope and another effect of added glucose, that of red blood cell deformation, was also observed. This phantom and blood OCT study demonstrates the technique’s ability to detect and quantify D-glucose presence in non-flowing liquid suspensions, and suggests several additional research routes necessary to determine its potential for in vivo applications.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations31
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLaser PhysicsSame topicOptical Coherence Tomography ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207