MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2492932116 · doi:10.1002/lsm.22554

Astigmatism corrected common path probe for optical coherence tomography

2016· article· en· W2492932116 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Kanwarpal Singh, Daisuke Yamada, Guillermo J. Tearney

Bibliographic record

VenueLasers in Surgery and Medicine · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOptical Coherence Tomography Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsOptical coherence tomographyAstigmatismOpticsTomographyCoherence (philosophical gambling strategy)OptometryPhysicsOphthalmologyMedicineMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Optical coherence tomography (OCT) catheters for intraluminal imaging are subject to various artifacts due to reference-sample arm dispersion imbalances and sample arm beam astigmatism. The goal of this work was to develop a probe that minimizes such artifacts. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Our probe was fabricated using a single mode fiber at the tip of which a glass spacer and graded index objective lens were spliced to achieve the desired focal distance. The signal was reflected using a curved reflector to correct for astigmatism caused by the thin, protective, transparent sheath that surrounds the optics. The probe design was optimized using Zemax, a commercially available optical design software. Common path interferometric operation was achieved using Fresnel reflection from the tip of the focusing graded index objective lens. The performance of the probe was tested using a custom designed spectrometer-based OCT system. RESULTS: The probe achieved an axial resolution of 15.6 μm in air, a lateral resolution 33 μm, and a sensitivity of 103 dB. A scattering tissue phantom was imaged to test the performance of the probe for astigmatism correction. Images of the phantom confirmed that this common-path, astigmatism-corrected OCT imaging probe had minimal artifacts in the axial, and lateral dimensions. CONCLUSIONS: In this work, we developed an astigmatism-corrected, common path probe that minimizes artifacts associated with standard OCT probes. This design may be useful for OCT applications that require high axial and lateral resolutions. Lasers Surg. Med. 49:312-318, 2017. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.477
Threshold uncertainty score0.392

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 designObservational
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 venueLasers in Surgery and MedicineSame topicOptical Coherence Tomography ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207