MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2065581854 · doi:10.1117/12.706561

Animal model for two-photon excitation in the eye

2006· article· en· W2065581854 on OpenAlexaff
Mark F. Bird, Melanie C. W. Campbell

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOcular and Laser Science Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOpticsMonochromatic colorHuman eyePhysicsLens (geology)Point spread functionPupilTwo-photon excitation microscopyDispersion (optics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We wish to deliver Two-Photon Excitation (TPE) to the in vivo retina and to image its effects in order to understand and treat eye disease. A schematic model of the rat eye with a gradient refractive index in the crystalline lens is reconstructed in ZEMAXTM. This model predicts the monochromatic aberrations as a function of pupil size and field angle and the change in the Point Spread Function (PSF) at best focus. A simple water model of the nonlinear pulse broadening effect has been used to predict the minimal temporal pulse width that will propagate to the retina. In a rat eye uncorrected for monochromatic aberrations, a pupil between 1mm and 1.8mm diameter delivers a peak intensity acceptable for two-photon effects. A somewhat larger diameter pupil (1.35-2.0mm) gives an optimum optical quality for imaging on the optical axis. Correction of the monochromatic aberrations with adaptive optics would improve both imaging and peak intensity. The effect of second order dispersion is dependent on the form of the dispersion relation used. Based on experimental results of second order dispersion, the minimum pulse width to reach the retina is approximately 30fs for the rat eye and approximately 60fs for the human eye.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.268 · 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
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

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicOcular and Laser Science ResearchFrench-language works237,207