MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2146332271 · doi:10.1088/0031-9155/49/20/010

An investigation on the use of data-driven scattering profiles in Monte Carlo simulations of ultraviolet light propagation in skin tissues

2004· article· en· W2146332271 on OpenAlexafffund
Gladimir V. G. Baranoski, Aravind Krishnaswamy, Bailey Kimmel

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics in Medicine and Biology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOptical Imaging and Spectroscopy Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMonte Carlo methodUltravioletScatteringRadiationPhotoagingOpticsExtreme ultravioletWavelengthPhysicsBiological systemComputer scienceDermatologyLaserMedicineMathematicsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ultraviolet light can affect the appearance and medical condition of the human skin by triggering biophysical processes such as erythema, melanogenesis, photoaging and carcinogenesis. The evolution of these processes is related to the amount of ultraviolet light absorbed by skin pigments. This amount may vary with the wavelength and path length of the radiation that is propagated within the skin tissues. For many years, biomedical researchers have been investigating the propagation of ultraviolet light in skin tissues through Monte Carlo simulations. The scattering of the incident radiation by tissue internal structures, a key component in this process, is usually approximated by functions without a plausible connection with the underlying physical phenomena. In this paper, we examine the origins of such an approach, and question its generalized use with respect to wavelengths and biological materials for which there is no supporting data available. Furthermore, we perform comparisons to demonstrate that the accuracy and predictability of Monte Carlo simulations of ultraviolet propagation in skin tissues can be improved by using a data-driven approach to represent the scattering profile of these 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.119
Threshold uncertainty score0.174

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.277
GPT teacher head0.429
Teacher spread0.152 · 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

Citations11
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics in Medicine and BiologySame topicOptical Imaging and Spectroscopy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207