Characterizing refractive index and thickness of biological tissues using combined multiphoton microscopy and optical coherence tomography
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present a noninvasive method for characterizing the refractive index (RI) and thickness distribution in biological tissues using a combined multiphoton microscopy (MPM) and optical coherence tomography (OCT) system. Tissue layers are distinguished by the MPM and OCT images, and the RI and thickness of each layer are determined by analyzing the co-registered MPM and OCT images. The precision of this method is evaluated on four standard samples which are water, air, immersion oil and cover glass. Precision of within ~1% error compared to reference values is obtained. Biological tissue measurement is demonstrated on fish cornea. Three layers are detected, which are identified as the epithelium and stroma I and II of the cornea. The corresponding RI of each layer is measured to be ~1.446-1.448, 1.345-1.372, and 1.392-1.436, respectively. The difference of RI in the three layers correlates with the tissue compositions including cells in epithelium, large collagen fiber bundles in stroma I, and small collagen fibers in stroma II. The combined MPM/OCT technique is shown to be able to distinguish tissue layers through biochemically specific contrasts and measure RI and thickness of tissue layers at different depths.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it