MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2095794017 · doi:10.1088/0031-9155/59/8/2089

Algorithm for localized adaptive diffuse optical tomography and its application in bioluminescence tomography

2014· article· en· W2095794017 on OpenAlexaff
Mohamed A. Naser, Michael S. Patterson, John Wong

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics in Medicine and Biology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOptical Imaging and Spectroscopy Techniques
Canadian institutionsJuravinski Cancer CentreHamilton Health SciencesMcMaster University
FundersNational Cancer InstituteNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsJacobian matrix and determinantDiffuse optical imagingSegmentationTomographyComputer scienceAlgorithmOptical tomographyComputer visionArtificial intelligenceIterative reconstructionOpticsPhysicsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A reconstruction algorithm for diffuse optical tomography based on diffusion theory and finite element method is described. The algorithm reconstructs the optical properties in a permissible domain or region-of-interest to reduce the number of unknowns. The algorithm can be used to reconstruct optical properties for a segmented object (where a CT-scan or MRI is available) or a non-segmented object. For the latter, an adaptive segmentation algorithm merges contiguous regions with similar optical properties thereby reducing the number of unknowns. In calculating the Jacobian matrix the algorithm uses an efficient direct method so the required time is comparable to that needed for a single forward calculation. The reconstructed optical properties using segmented, non-segmented, and adaptively segmented 3D mouse anatomy (MOBY) are used to perform bioluminescence tomography (BLT) for two simulated internal sources. The BLT results suggest that the accuracy of reconstruction of total source power obtained without the segmentation provided by an auxiliary imaging method such as x-ray CT is comparable to that obtained when using perfect segmentation.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.698
Threshold uncertainty score0.423

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.311 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations12
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics in Medicine and BiologySame topicOptical Imaging and Spectroscopy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207