Proof of principle of a stokes polarimetry probe for skin lesion evaluation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper covers two proof of principle trials in an ongoing project to develop a fast, portable, and low-cost optical probe that uses Stokes polarimetry to evaluate skin lesions. Polarization is a property of light waves that describes the orientation and shape of their oscillations. The polarization state can be described using Stokes parameters, and several measurements derived from these parameters such as the degree of polarization, the azimuth and ellipticity angles of the polarization ellipse, and the coordinates on a Poincaré sphere. The probe shines low-intensity polarization-controlled laser light at a lesion, and analyzes the backscattered light in order to detect how the light's polarization has been changed due to the light-tissue interaction. Testing with skin phantoms has demonstrated a relationship between phantom roughness and the degree of polarization. Preliminary testing on an in-vivo lesion showed that lesion sites demonstrated a lower degree of polarization as compared to normal skin. These results indicate our progress towards the development of a powerful and practical tool to assist skin lesion evaluation.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it