MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2125125117 · doi:10.4236/jbise.2010.31004

Fiber lenses for ultra-small probes used in optical coherent tomography

2010· article· en· W2125125117 on OpenAlexaff
Youxin Mao, Shoude Chang, Costel Flueraru

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biomedical Science and Engineering · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOptical Coherence Tomography Applications
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council CanadaInstitute for Microstructural Sciences
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOptical coherence tomographyMaterials scienceOpticsLens (geology)Optical fiberGradient-index opticsFiberFabricationOptoelectronicsRefractive indexPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present a design, construction and characterization of different variations of GRIN and ball fiber lenses, which were recently proposed for ultra-small biomedical imaging probes. Those fiber lens modules are made of a single mode fiber and a GRIN or ball fiber lens with or without a fiber spacer between them. The lens diameters are smaller than 0.3 mm. We discuss design methods, fabrication techniques, and measuring performance of the fiber lenses. The experimental results are compared to their modeling results. The fabrication of a high quality beam director for both lens types is presented as well. These fiber integrated beam directors could be added on the tips of the fiber lenses for side-view probes. A needle probe made by these fiber lenses is demonstrated as a sample of the ultra-small probe for biomedical imaging application. In vivo human finger images acquired by a swept source optical coherence tomography using the fiber lenses with different beam profiles were shown, which indicates the important impact of fiber

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations26
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Biomedical Science and EngineeringSame topicOptical Coherence Tomography ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207