MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2094736506 · doi:10.1117/12.2040964

Evaluation of state-of-the-art imaging systems for<i>in vivo</i>monitoring of retinal structure in mice: current capabilities and limitations

2014· article· en· W2094736506 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Pengfei Zhang, Azhar Zam, Edward N. Pugh, Robert J. Zawadzki

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRetinal Development and Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSimon Fraser UniversityUniversity of California, DavisResearch to Prevent Blindness
KeywordsOptical coherence tomographyModalitiesVisualizationPreclinical imagingOptical imagingComputer scienceMedical imagingScanning laser ophthalmoscopyRetinalFundus (uterus)OphthalmoscopyComputer visionArtificial intelligenceIn vivoMedicineOpticsOphthalmologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Animal models of human diseases play an important role in studying and advancing our understanding of these conditions, allowing molecular level studies of pathogenesis as well as testing of new therapies. Recently several non-invasive imaging modalities including Fundus Camera, Scanning Laser Ophthalmoscopy (SLO) and Optical Coherence Tomography (OCT) have been successfully applied to monitor changes in the retinas of the living animals in experiments in which a single animal is followed over a portion of its lifespan. Here we evaluate the capabilities and limitations of these three imaging modalities for visualization of specific structures in the mouse eye. Example images acquired from different types of mice are presented. Future directions of development for these instruments and potential advantages of multi-modal imaging systems are discussed as well.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.430

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations9
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicRetinal Development and DisordersFrench-language works237,207