MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2116674891 · doi:10.1117/1.jbo.17.5.055002

Validity of a theoretical model to examine blood oxygenation dependent optoacoustics

2012· article· en· W2116674891 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Ratan K. Saha

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biomedical Optics · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPhotoacoustic and Ultrasonic Imaging
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchTerry Fox FoundationNuclear PhysicsNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsBandlimitingAmplitudeSIGNAL (programming language)Monte Carlo methodPhysicsComputational physicsRed blood cellRange (aeronautics)Saturation (graph theory)Spectral densityOpticsNuclear magnetic resonanceMaterials scienceChemistryMathematicsComputer scienceFourier transformStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A theoretical model investigating the dependence of optoacoustic (OA) signal on blood oxygen saturation (SO(2)) is discussed. The derivations for the nonbandlimited and bandlimited OA signals from many red blood cells (RBCs) are presented. The OA field generated by many RBCs was obtained by summing the OA field emitted by each RBC approximated as a fluid sphere. A Monte Carlo technique was employed generating the spatial organizations of RBCs in two-dimensional. The RBCs were assumed to have the same SO(2) level in a simulated configuration. The fractional number of oxyhemoglobin molecules, confined in a cell, determined the cellular SO(2) and also defined the blood SO(2). For the nonbandlimited case, the OA signal amplitude decreased and increased linearly with blood SO(2) when illuminated by 700 and 1000 nm radiations, respectively. The power spectra exhibited similar trends over the entire frequency range (MHz to GHz). For the bandlimited case, three acoustic receivers with 2, 10, and 50 MHz as the center frequencies were considered. The linear variations of the OA amplitude with blood SO(2) were also observed for each receiver at those laser sources. The good agreement between simulated and published experimental results validates the model qualitatively.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations35
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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