MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2073352609 · doi:10.1063/1.4825034

Photoacoustic correlation signal-to-noise ratio enhancement by coherent averaging and optical waveform optimization

2013· article· en· W2073352609 on OpenAlexaff
Sergey A. Telenkov, Rudolf Alwi, Andreas Mandelis

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of Scientific Instruments · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPhotoacoustic and Ultrasonic Imaging
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWaveformSIGNAL (programming language)Modulation (music)Signal-to-noise ratio (imaging)OpticsLaserPhysicsAcousticsNoise (video)Frequency modulationDiodeMaterials scienceComputer scienceOptoelectronicsBandwidth (computing)TelecommunicationsVoltageArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Photoacoustic (PA) imaging of biological tissues using laser diodes instead of conventional Q-switched pulsed systems provides an attractive alternative for biomedical applications. However, the relatively low energy of laser diodes operating in the pulsed regime, results in generation of very weak acoustic waves, and low signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of the detected signals. This problem can be addressed if optical excitation is modulated using custom waveforms and correlation processing is employed to increase SNR through signal compression. This work investigates the effect of the parameters of the modulation waveform on the resulting correlation signal and offers a practical means for optimizing PA signal detection. The advantage of coherent signal averaging is demonstrated using theoretical analysis and a numerical model of PA generation. It was shown that an additional 5-10 dB of SNR can be gained through waveform engineering by adjusting the parameters and profile of optical modulation waveforms.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.203 · 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

Citations34
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of Scientific InstrumentsSame topicPhotoacoustic and Ultrasonic ImagingFrench-language works237,207