MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2083477458 · doi:10.1063/1.1516242

Depth profilometric case studies in caries diagnostics of human teeth using modulated laser radiometry and luminescence

2003· article· en· W2083477458 on OpenAlexaff
Raymond J. Jeon, Andreas Mandelis, Stephen H. Abrams

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of Scientific Instruments · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLaser Applications in Dentistry and Medicine
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceLuminescenceEnamel paintLaserOpticsAmplitudeOptoelectronicsComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Simultaneous measurements from human teeth of photothermal radiometric (PTR) and luminescence (LM) signals induced by an intensity modulated laser have been performed to assess the feasibility of detecting deep lesions and near-surface cracks, to examine the effects of varying enamel thicknesses, the presence of fillings, and stains on the surface of teeth. A commercial dc luminescence monitoring instrument (DIAGNOdent by KaVo) was also used to examine a set of teeth for comparison purposes with PTR and LM. PTR amplitude signals from carious regions and from thin enamel were higher than those from healthy regions and thicker enamel. A crack produces a peak in the PTR amplitude scan, as well as a sudden change in the luminescence amplitude at the corresponding point. At low frequencies (5 Hz), the PTR amplitude showed high sensitivity to a deep (about 2 mm) lesion, while at high frequencies (700 Hz) it was more sensitive to surface cracks. It was concluded that by selecting proper modulation frequencies of the laser, measurements of PTR and LM signals could be used as a dental diagnostic technique with a small, inexpensive, low-power (<30 mW) semiconductor laser as a light source emitting in the optical window range of hard tissue (650–1000 nm).

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)0.003
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.089
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.312 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations11
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of Scientific InstrumentsSame topicLaser Applications in Dentistry and MedicineFrench-language works237,207