MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2113045550 · doi:10.1117/1.jbo.18.6.067005

Phase-function corrected diffusion model for diffuse reflectance of a pencil beam obliquely incident on a semi-infinite turbid medium

2013· article· en· W2113045550 on OpenAlexafffund
Roger J. Zemp

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biomedical Optics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPhotoacoustic and Ultrasonic Imaging
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMonte Carlo methodOpticsPoint spread functionPhoton diffusionPhoton transport in biological tissueDiffusionInverse problemReflectometryComputer sciencePhysicsMathematicsMathematical analysisStatisticsMarkov chain Monte Carlo

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Oblique incidence reflectometry (OIR) is an established technique for the estimation of tissue optical properties. However, a sensing footprint of a few transport mean-free paths is often needed when diffusion-regime-based algorithms are used. Smaller-footprint probes require improved light-propagation models and inversion schemes for diffuse reflectance close to the point of entry but might enable micro-endoscopic form factors for clinical assessments of cancers and precancers. The phase-function corrected diffusion theory presented by Vitkin et al. [Nat. Commun. 2, 587 (2011)] to the case of pencil beams obliquely incident on a semi-infinite turbid medium is extended. The model requires minimal computational resources and offers improved accuracy over more traditional diffusion-theory approximations models when validated against Monte Carlo simulations. The computationally efficient nature of the models lends itself to rapid fitting procedures for inverse problems. The analytical model is used in a nonlinear fitting algorithm to demonstrate the recovery of optical properties using a measurement footprint that is significantly smaller than needed in previous diffusion-regime OIR methods.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.971
Threshold uncertainty score0.615

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations17
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Biomedical OpticsSame topicPhotoacoustic and Ultrasonic ImagingFrench-language works237,207