Multimodal optical imaging with multiphoton microscopy and optical coherence tomography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two types of combined multiphoton microscopy and optical coherence tomography (MPM/OCT) are compared for multimodal optical imaging. Single-scale multiphoton microscopy and optical coherence microscopy (MPM/OCM) is shown to acquire multiple contrasts from MPM and OCT simultaneously. Multi-scale MPM/OCT is shown to provide multiple field-of-views (FOVs), where OCT provides tissue level imaging and MPM provides cellular level imaging. In both types, the MPM includes two channels which are two-photon excited fluorescence (TPEF) and second harmonic generation (SHG). Representative images using each system are demonstrated on biological specimens. A detailed comparison of the two types of MPM/OCT shows that each system has its own pros and cons. MPM/OCM is high-resolution but with limited FOV, and OCM may or may not provide additional information than MPM depending on the samples. Multi-scale MPM/OCT can change FOV but need both low and high NA objectives. For future development, the two types of MPM/OCT can be further integrated to achieve both functions on a single system.
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".