<i>In Vivo</i>Supervised Analysis of Stent Reendothelialization From Optical Coherence Tomography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study is to interactively assess reendothelialization of stents at an accuracy of down to a few micrometer by analyzing endovascular optical coherence tomography (OCT) sequences. Vessel wall and stent struts are automatically detected by using morphological, gradient, and symmetry operators coupled with active contour models; alerts are issued to ask for user supervision over some extreme irregular geometries caused by thrombotic lesions or dissections. A complete distance map is then computed from sparse distances measured between wall and struts. Missing values are interpolated by thin-plate spline (TPS) functions. Accuracy and robustness are increased by taking into account the inhomogeneity of data points and integrating in the same framework orthogonalized forward selection of support points, optimal selection of regularization parameters by generalized cross-validation, and rejection of detection outliers. Validation is performed on simulated data, phantom acquisitions and 11 typical in vivo OCT sequences. The comparison against manual expert measurements demonstrates a bias of the order of OCT resolution (less than 10 microm) and a standard deviation of the order of the strut width (less than 150 microm).
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.009 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".