Calibration standards for multicenter clinical trials of fluorescence spectroscopy for in vivo diagnosis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the context of clinical trials, calibration protocols for optical instruments that ensure measurement accuracy and the ability to carry out meaningful comparisons of data acquired from multiple instruments are required. A series of calibration standards and procedures are presented to assess technical feasibility of optical devices for cervical precancer detection. Measurements of positive and negative standards, and tissue are made with two generations of research grade spectrometers. Calibration accuracy, ability of standards to correct and account for changes in experimental conditions, and device components are analyzed. The relative frequency of measured calibration standards is investigated retrospectively using statistical analysis of trends in instrument performance. Fluorescence measurements of standards and tissue made with completely different spectrometers show good agreement in intensity and lineshape. Frequency of wavelength calibration standards is increased to every 2 h to compensate for thermal drifts in grating mount. Variations in illumination energy detected between standards and patient measurements require probe redesign to allow for simultaneous acquisition of illumination power with every patient measurement. The use of frequent and well-characterized standards enables meaningful comparison of data from multiple devices and unambiguous interpretation of experiments among the biomedical optics community.
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.
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 | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it