MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2156286752 · doi:10.1117/1.2193157

Simple device for the direct visualization of oral-cavity tissue fluorescence

2006· article· en· W2156286752 on OpenAlexaff
Pierre Lane, Terence J. Gilhuly, Peter D. Whitehead, Haishan Zeng, Catherine F. Poh, Samson Ng, P. Michele Williams, Lewei Zhang, Miriam P. Rosin, Calum MacAulay

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biomedical Optics · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhotodynamic Therapy Research Studies
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversityUniversity of British ColumbiaBC Cancer Agency
FundersNational Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research
KeywordsFluorescenceContext (archaeology)Materials scienceBiomedical engineeringOral cavityMedicinePathologyOpticsDentistryBiologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Early identification of high-risk disease could greatly reduce both mortality and morbidity due to oral cancer. We describe a simple handheld device that facilitates the direct visualization of oral-cavity fluorescence for the detection of high-risk precancerous and early cancerous lesions. Blue excitation light (400 to 460 nm) is employed to excite green-red fluorescence from fluorophores in the oral tissues. Tissue fluorescence is viewed directly along an optical axis collinear with the axis of excitation to reduce inter- and intraoperator variability. This robust, field-of-view device enables the direct visualization of fluorescence in the context of surrounding normal tissue. Results from a pilot study of 44 patients are presented. Using histology as the gold standard, the device achieves a sensitivity of 98% and specificity of 100% when discriminating normal mucosa from severe dysplasia/carcinoma in situ (CIS) or invasive carcinoma. We envisage this device as a suitable adjunct for oral cancer screening, biopsy guidance, and margin delineation.

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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.352 · 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

Citations371
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Biomedical OpticsSame topicPhotodynamic Therapy Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207