MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2333658501 · doi:10.1021/ac5005635

Quantitative Nonlinear Optical Assessment of Atherosclerosis Progression in Rabbits

2014· article· en· W2333658501 on OpenAlexaff
Leila B. Mostaço-Guidolin, Elicia K. Kohlenberg, Michael S. Smith, Mark Hewko, Arkady Major, Michael G. Sowa, Alex C.‐T. Ko

Bibliographic record

VenueAnalytical Chemistry · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicAtherosclerosis and Cardiovascular Diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaNational Research Council CanadaMedical Council of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistryPathologyAortaOptical imagingMyocardial infarctionNonlinear opticalCardiologyImmunohistochemistryQuantitative assessmentInternal medicineMedicineNonlinear systemOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Quantification of atherosclerosis has been a challenging task owing to its complex pathology. In this study, we validated a quantitative approach for assessing atherosclerosis progression in a rabbit model using a numerical matrix, optical index for plaque burden, derived directly from the nonlinear optical microscopic images captured on the atherosclerosis-affected blood vessel. A positive correlation between this optical index and the severity of atherosclerotic lesions, represented by the age of the rabbits, was established based on data collected from 21 myocardial infarction-prone Watanabe heritable hyperlipidemic rabbits with age ranging between new-born and 27 months old. The same optical index also accurately identified high-risk locations for atherosclerotic plaque formation along the entire aorta, which was validated by immunohistochemical fluorescence imaging.

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)0.002
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.287 · 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

Citations3
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnalytical ChemistrySame topicAtherosclerosis and Cardiovascular DiseasesFrench-language works237,207