Empirical modelling to predict the refractive index of human blood
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Optical techniques used for the measurement of the optical properties of blood are of great interest in clinical diagnostics. Blood analysis is a routine procedure used in medical diagnostics to confirm a patient's condition. Measuring the optical properties of blood is difficult due to the non-homogenous nature of the blood itself. In addition, there is a lot of variation in the refractive indices reported in the literature. These are the reasons that motivated the researchers to develop a mathematical model that can be used to predict the refractive index of human blood as a function of concentration, temperature and wavelength. The experimental measurements were conducted on mimicking phantom hemoglobin samples using the Abbemat Refractometer. The results analysis revealed a linear relationship between the refractive index and concentration as well as temperature, and a non-linear relationship between refractive index and wavelength. These results are in agreement with those found in the literature. In addition, a new formula was developed based on empirical modelling which suggests that temperature and wavelength coefficients be added to the Barer formula. The verification of this correlation confirmed its ability to determine refractive index and/or blood hematocrit values with appropriate clinical accuracy.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".