MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2131700386 · doi:10.1142/s179354581000085x

LIMITATIONS OF CANCER MARGIN DELINEATION BY MEANS OF AUTOFLUORESCENCE IMAGING UNDER CONDITIONS OF LASER SURGERY

2010· article· en· W2131700386 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Alexandre Douplik, Azhar Zam, R. Hohenstein, Angelos Kalitzeos, Emeka Nkenke, Florian Stelzle

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Innovative Optical Health Sciences · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhotodynamic Therapy Research Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersErlangen Graduate School of Advanced Optical Technologies
KeywordsAutofluorescenceAblationLaser ablationLaserSurgical marginMargin (machine learning)MedicineMaterials scienceBiomedical engineeringCancerOpticsRadiologyPathologyFluorescenceComputer sciencePhysicsInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Limitations of cancer margin delineation and surgical guidance by means of autofluorescence imaging under conditions of laser ablation were investigated and preliminary results are presented. PinPoint™ (Novadaq Technologies Inc., Canada) was used to capture digital images and Er:YAG laser (2.94 μm, Glissando, WaveLight™, Germany) was exploited to cause laser ablation on both normal and cancer sites of the specimen. It was shown that changes of the autofluorescence image after ablation extend beyond the actual sizes of the ablation loci. The tumor tissue after the laser ablation starts to emit fluorescent light within the green wavelength band (490–550 nm) similar to normal tissue stating that the current technology of in-process tissue classification fails. However, when the autofluorescence was collected in the red range (600–750 nm), then the abnormal/normal contrast was reduced, but still present even after the laser ablation. The present study highlights the importance of finding a proper technology for surgical navigation of cancer removal under conditions of high power effects in biological tissues.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.586
Threshold uncertainty score0.620

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.336 · 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

Citations14
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Innovative Optical Health SciencesSame topicPhotodynamic Therapy Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207