MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2112169200 · doi:10.1117/1.2241609

Investigation of light propagation models to determine the optical properties of tissue from interstitial frequency domain fluence measurements

2006· article· en· W2112169200 on OpenAlexaff
Heping Xu, Thomas J. Farrell, Michael S. Patterson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biomedical Optics · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOptical Imaging and Spectroscopy Techniques
Canadian institutionsJuravinski Cancer Centre
FundersNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsOpticsMonte Carlo methodIsotropyFluenceScatteringDiffusionDiffusion equationComputational physicsAbsorption (acoustics)PhysicsAttenuation coefficientMaterials scienceCollimated lightMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Four models, standard diffusion approximation (SDA), single Monte Carlo (SMC), delta-P1, and isotropic similarity (ISM), are developed and evaluated as forward calculation tools in the estimation of tissue optical properties. The inverse calculation uses the ratio of the fluences and phase difference at two locations close to an intensity modulated isotropic source to recover the reduced scattering coefficient mus' and the absorption coefficient mua. Diffusion theory allows recovery of optical properties (OPs) within 5% for media with mus'mua>10. The performance of the delta-P1 model is similar to SDA, with limited enhanced accuracy. The collimation approximation may limit the use of the delta-P1 model for spherical geometry, and/or the fluence may not be accurately calculated by this model. The SMC model is the best, recovering OPs within 10% regardless of the albedo. However, the necessary restriction of the searched OPs space is inconvenient. The performance of ISM is similar to that of diffusion theory for media with mus'mua>10, and better for 1<mus'mua<10, i.e., determines absorption within 5% and reduced scattering within 20%. In practice, satisfactory estimates (within 5 to 10%) can be achieved using SDA to recover mus' and ISM to recover mua for media with mus'mua>5.

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)0.000
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 score0.067
Threshold uncertainty score0.293

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.285
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 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

Citations15
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Biomedical OpticsSame topicOptical Imaging and Spectroscopy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207