Measurement of fluorophore concentrations and fluorescence quantum yield in tissue-simulating phantoms using three diffusion models of steady-state spatially resolved fluorescence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Steady-state diffusion theory models of fluorescence in tissue have been investigated for recovering fluorophore concentrations and fluorescence quantum yield. Spatially resolved fluorescence, excitation and emission reflectance Carlo simulations, and measured using a multi-fibre probe on tissue-simulating phantoms containing either aluminium phthalocyanine tetrasulfonate (AlPcS4), Photofrin meso-tetra-(4-sulfonatophenyl)-porphine dihydrochloride The accuracy of the fluorophore concentration and fluorescence quantum yield recovered by three different models of spatially resolved fluorescence were compared. The models were based on: (a) weighted difference of the excitation and emission reflectance, (b) fluorescence due to a point excitation source or (c) fluorescence due to a pencil beam excitation source. When literature values for the fluorescence quantum yield were used for each of the fluorophores, the fluorophore absorption coefficient (and hence concentration) at the excitation wavelength (mu(a,x,f)) was recovered with a root-mean-square accuracy of 11.4% using the point source model of fluorescence and 8.0% using the more complicated pencil beam excitation model. The accuracy was calculated over a broad range of optical properties and fluorophore concentrations. The weighted difference of reflectance model performed poorly, with a root-mean-square error in concentration of about 50%. Monte Carlo simulations suggest that there are some situations where the weighted difference of reflectance is as accurate as the other two models, although this was not confirmed experimentally. Estimates of the fluorescence quantum yield in multiple scattering media were also made by determining mu(a,x,f) independently from the fitted absorption spectrum and applying the various diffusion theory models. The fluorescence quantum yields for AlPcS4 and TPPS4 were calculated to be 0.59 +/- 0.03 and 0.121 +/- 0.001 respectively using the point source model, and 0.63 +/- 0.03 and 0.129 +/- 0.002 using the pencil beam excitation model. These results are consistent with published values.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".