MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2460550619 · doi:10.1109/embsisc.2016.7508619

Proof of principle of a stokes polarimetry probe for skin lesion evaluation

2016· article· en· W2460550619 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel C. Louie, Lioudmila Tchvialeva, Tim K. Lee

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOptical Polarization and Ellipsometry
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer AgencySKiN Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolarimetryStokes parametersPolarization (electrochemistry)Degree of polarizationOpticsImaging phantomAzimuthCircular polarizationEllipseLesionPhysicsMaterials scienceScatteringChemistryMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.263 · 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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicOptical Polarization and EllipsometryFrench-language works237,207