MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2312123650 · doi:10.1364/boe.6.003765

Review of fluorescence guided surgery visualization and overlay techniques

2015· article· en· W2312123650 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Jonathan T. Elliott, Alisha V. DSouza, Scott C. Davis, Jonathan D. Olson, Keith D. Paulsen, David W. Roberts, Brian W. Pogue

Bibliographic record

VenueBiomedical Optics Express · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOptical Imaging and Spectroscopy Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Cancer InstituteNational Institutes of HealthCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchDartmouth College
KeywordsVisualizationComputer scienceTransparency (behavior)PerceptionOverlayComputer visionOrientation (vector space)Focus (optics)Artificial intelligenceHuman–computer interactionOpticsPhysicsPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In fluorescence guided surgery, data visualization represents a critical step between signal capture and display needed for clinical decisions informed by that signal. The diversity of methods for displaying surgical images are reviewed, and a particular focus is placed on electronically detected and visualized signals, as required for near-infrared or low concentration tracers. Factors driving the choices such as human perception, the need for rapid decision making in a surgical environment, and biases induced by display choices are outlined. Five practical suggestions are outlined for optimal display orientation, color map, transparency/alpha function, dynamic range compression, and color perception check.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.004

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.326 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations57
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiomedical Optics ExpressSame topicOptical Imaging and Spectroscopy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207