MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2137927243 · doi:10.1117/1.jbo.18.1.016011

Monitoring angiogenesis using a human compatible calibration for broadband near-infrared spectroscopy

2013· article· en· W2137927243 on OpenAlexafffund
Runze Yang, Qiong Zhang, Ying Wu, Jeff F. Dunn

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biomedical Optics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOptical Imaging and Spectroscopy Techniques
Canadian institutionsHotchkiss Brain InstituteUniversity of Calgary
FundersNational Institute of Biomedical Imaging and BioengineeringNational Institutes of HealthCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchAlberta Innovates
KeywordsAngiogenesisAcclimatizationMedicineLaser Doppler velocimetryBlood volumeCalibrationBiomedical engineeringInternal medicineChemistryBiologyBlood flow

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Angiogenesis is a hallmark of many conditions, including cancer, stroke, vascular disease, diabetes, and high-altitude exposure. We have previously shown that one can study angiogenesis in animal models by using total hemoglobin (tHb) as a marker of cerebral blood volume (CBV), measured using broadband near-infrared spectroscopy (bNIRS). However, the method was not suitable for patients as global anoxia was used for the calibration. Here we determine if angiogenesis could be detected using a calibration method that could be applied to patients. CBV, as a marker of angiogenesis, is quantified in a rat cortex before and after hypoxia acclimation. Rats are acclimated at 370-mmHg pressure for three weeks, while rats in the control group are housed under the same conditions, but under normal pressure. CBV increased in each animal in the acclimation group. The mean CBV (%volume/volume) is 3.49%± 0.43% (mean ± SD) before acclimation for the experimental group, and 4.76%± 0.29% after acclimation. The CBV for the control group is 3.28%± 0.75%, and 3.09%± 0.48% for the two measurements. This demonstrates that angiogenesis can be monitored noninvasively over time using a bNIRS system with a calibration method that is compatible with human use and less stressful for studies using animals.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.319 · 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
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

Citations8
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Biomedical OpticsSame topicOptical Imaging and Spectroscopy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207