MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2313027821 · doi:10.1117/12.2212831

Transcranial light-tissue interaction analysis

2016· article· en· W2313027821 on OpenAlexaff
Kavleen Aulakh, Scott Zakaib, William G. Willmore, Winnie N. Ye

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOptical Imaging and Spectroscopy Techniques
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The penetration depth of light plays a crucial role in therapeutic medical applications. In order to design effective medical photonic devices, an in-depth understanding of light’s ability to penetrate tissues (including bone, skin, and fat) is necessary. The amount of light energy absorbed or scattered by tissues affects the intensity of light reaching an intended target in vivo. In this study, we examine the transmittance of light through a variety of cranial tissues for the purpose of determining the efficacy of neuro stimulation using a transcranial laser. Tissue samples collected from a pig were irradiated with a pulsed laser. We first determine the optimal irradiation wavelength of the laser to be 808nm. With varying peak and average power of the laser, we found an inverse and logarithmic relationship between the penetration depth and the intensity of the light. After penetrating the skin and skull of the pig, the light decreases in intensity at a rate of approximately 90.8 (±0.4) percent for every 5 mm of brain tissue penetrated. We also found the correlation between the irradiation time and dosage, using three different lasers (with peak power of 500, 1000, and 1500mW respectively). These data will help deduce what laser power is required to achieve a clinically-realistic model for a given irradiation time. This work is fundamental and the experimental data can be used to supplement existing and future research on the effects of laser light on brain tissue for the design of medical devices.

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)0.001
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 score0.169
Threshold uncertainty score0.806

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.260 · 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

Citations6
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicOptical Imaging and Spectroscopy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207