MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2062049965 · doi:10.1364/ol.37.002571

Model-independent dynamic constraint to improve the optical reconstruction of regional kinetic parameters

2012· article· en· W2062049965 on OpenAlexafffund
Jonathan T. Elliott, Mamadou Diop, Ting‐Yim Lee, Keith St. Lawrence

Bibliographic record

VenueOptics Letters · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOptical Imaging and Spectroscopy Techniques
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersOntario Neurotrauma FoundationHeart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
KeywordsDeconvolutionInverse problemKinetic energyOpticsIterative reconstructionComputer scienceBiological systemConstraint (computer-aided design)AlgorithmMaterials sciencePhysicsMathematicsComputer visionMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Optical dye-dilution techniques can quantify kinetic parameters in a region of tissue, but currently rely on a two-step process-spatial reconstruction of the dye concentration, repeated at every time-point, and subsequent kinetic analysis of the time-dependent change in dye concentration. Inaccuracies, in this approach, are due mainly to the ill-posed nature of the spatial reconstruction problem, which propagates into kinetic analysis and result in errors in extracted dynamic parameters. We present a hybrid kinetic deconvolution optical reconstruction algorithm, effectively combining optical reconstruction and model-independent kinetic analysis into a single inverse problem that is better posed. Kinetic parameters of multiple tissue regions can be quantified simultaneously. As proof of principle, we provide numerical experiments in reflectance-based and fluorescence molecular tomography scenarios.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations17
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOptics LettersSame topicOptical Imaging and Spectroscopy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207