Does optical microangiography provide accurate imaging of capillary vessels?: validation using multiphoton microscopy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Optical microangiography (OMAG) has been extensively utilized to study three-dimensional tissue vasculature in vivo. However, with the limited image resolution (∼10 μm ) of the commonly used systems, some concerns were raised: (1) whether OMAG is capable of providing the imaging of capillary vessels that are of an average diameter of ∼6 μm ; (2) if yes, whether OMAG can provide meaningful quantification of vascular density within the scanned tissue volume. Multiphoton microscopy (MPM) is capable of depth-resolved high-resolution (∼1 μm ) imaging of biological tissue structures. With externally labeled plasma, the vascular network including single capillaries can be well visualized. We compare the vascular images of in vivo mouse brain acquired by both OMAG and MPM systems. We found that within the penetration depth range of the MPM system, OMAG is able to accurately visualize blood vessels including capillaries. Although the resolution of OMAG may not be able to 100% resolve two closely packed tiny capillaries in tissue, it is still capable of visualizing most of the capillaries because there are interstitial tissue spaces between them. We believe our validation results reinforce the application of OMAG in microvasculature-related studies.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".