MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2065614805 · doi:10.1364/boe.5.004338

Monte Carlo modeling of angiographic optical coherence tomography

2014· article· en· W2065614805 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Alzbeta E. Hartinger, Ahhyun S. Nam, Isabel Chico‐Calero, Benjamin J. Vakoc

Bibliographic record

VenueBiomedical Optics Express · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOptical Coherence Tomography Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Biomedical Imaging and BioengineeringNational Cancer InstituteNational Center for Research ResourcesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsComputer scienceOptical coherence tomographyMonte Carlo methodDecorrelationAlgorithmCoherence (philosophical gambling strategy)AngiographyArtificial intelligenceImage processingSignal processingTomographyMedical imagingComputer visionOpticsRadiologyImage (mathematics)PhysicsMedicineMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Optical coherence tomography (OCT) provides both structural and angiographic imaging modes. Because of its unique capabilities, OCT-based angiography has been increasingly adopted into small animal and human subject imaging. To support the development of the signal and image processing algorithms on which OCT-based angiography depends, we describe here a Monte Carlo-based model of the imaging approach. The model supports arbitrary three-dimensional vascular network geometries and incorporates methods to simulate OCT signal temporal decorrelation. With this model, it will be easier to compare the performance of existing and new angiographic signal processing algorithms, and to quantify the accuracy of vascular segmentation algorithms. The quantitative analysis of key algorithms within OCT-based angiography may, in turn, simplify the selection of algorithms in instrument design and accelerate the pace of new algorithm development.

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)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
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 science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations19
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiomedical Optics ExpressSame topicOptical Coherence Tomography ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207