MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2149988346 · doi:10.1117/1.2904664

Handheld forward-imaging needle endoscope for ophthalmic optical coherence tomography inspection

2008· article· en· W2149988346 on OpenAlexaff
Shuo Han, Marinko V. Šarunic, Jigang Wu, Mark S. Humayun, Changhuei Yang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biomedical Optics · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOptical Coherence Tomography Applications
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersCalifornia Institute of TechnologyNational Science Foundation
KeywordsOptical coherence tomographyOpticsVitrectomyBiomedical engineeringMedical imagingTomographyMaterials scienceMedicinePhysicsRadiologyVisual acuity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We report the narrowest to-date (21 gauge, 820-microm-diam) handheld forward-imaging optical coherence tomography (OCT) needle endoscope and demonstrate its feasibility for ophthalmic OCT inspection. The probe design is based on paired-angle-rotation scanning (PARS), which enables a linear B-scan pattern in front of the probe tip by using two counterrotating angle polished gradient-index (GRIN) lenses. Despite its small size, the probe can provide a numerical apertune (NA) of 0.22 and an experimental sensitivity of 92 dB at 0.5 frames. The feasibility of retinal imaging is tested on enucleated ex vivo porcine eyes, where structural features including remnant vitreous humor, retina, and choroid can be clearly distinguished. Due to its imaging quality comparable to a commercial OCT system and compatibility with the current ophthalmic surgery standard, the probe can potentially serve as a better alternative to traditional visual inspection by white light illumination during vitreoretinal surgery (e.g., vitrectomy).

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)0.000
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Citations80
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Biomedical OpticsSame topicOptical Coherence Tomography ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207