MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2145174480 · doi:10.1117/12.2004991

Photoacoustic radio-frequency spectroscopy (PA-RFS): A technique for monitoring absorber size and concentration

2013· article· en· W2145174480 on OpenAlexaff
Eno Hysi, Dustin Dopsa, Michael C. Kolios

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPhotoacoustic and Ultrasonic Imaging
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhotoacoustic spectroscopyPhotoacoustic imaging in biomedicineMaterials scienceRadio frequencySpectroscopyAcousticsOpticsPhysicsComputer scienceTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A photoacoustic technique for monitoring absorber size and concentration is presented. The technique relies on analyzing the power spectra of the radio-frequency signals and taking into account the receiving transducer response in order to remove system dependencies. By normalizing the power spectra, parameters derived from ultrasound tissue characterization (spectral slope and midband fit) can be obtained. Tissue mimicking phantoms were constructed using black polystyrene beads of various sizes and concentrations as absorbers. The spectral slope decreased by 0.63 dB/MHz when the size of the particle increased from 1 μm to 10 μm at every bead concentration. The midband fit was ~4 dB higher for the 10 μm particle and increased linearly with concentration. These results suggest that photoacoustic radiofrequency spectroscopy (PA-RFS) can potentially monitor changes in absorber size and concentration thus improving the ability of photoacoustic imaging to distinguish structural tissue variations.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.209 · 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

Citations5
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicPhotoacoustic and Ultrasonic ImagingFrench-language works237,207