MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2095366113 · doi:10.1117/1.2434970

Investigations of the eye fundus using a simultaneous optical coherence tomography/indocyanine green fluorescence imaging system

2007· article· en· W2095366113 on OpenAlexaff
Adrian Podoleanu, George Dobre, R. Cernat, John A. Rogers, Justin Pedro, Richard B. Rosen, Patricia Garcia

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biomedical Optics · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOptical Coherence Tomography Applications
Canadian institutionsNanoacademic Technologies
FundersEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilNew York Eye and Ear Infirmary of Mount Sinai
KeywordsIndocyanine greenOptical coherence tomographyConfocalOpticsFundus (uterus)Fluorescence-lifetime imaging microscopyMaterials scienceConfocal microscopyFluorescenceBiomedical engineeringMedicinePhysicsRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We develop a dual-channel optical coherence tomography/indocyanine green (OCT/ICG) fluorescence system based on our previously reported ophthalmic OCT/confocal imaging system. The confocal channel is tuned to the fluorescence wavelength range of the ICG dye and light from the same optical source is used to generate the OCT image and to excite the ICG fluorescence. The system enables the clinician to visualize simultaneously en face OCT slices and corresponding ICG angiograms of the ocular fundus, displayed side by side. C-scan (constant depth) and B-scan (cross section) images are collected by fast en face scanning (T-scan). The pixel-to-pixel correspondence between the OCT and angiography images enables the user to precisely capture OCT B-scans at selected points on the ICG confocal images.

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)0.001
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations18
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Biomedical OpticsSame topicOptical Coherence Tomography ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207