MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2542582624 · doi:10.1039/c6an02061e

Raman spectroscopy in microsurgery: impact of operating microscope illumination sources on data quality and tissue classification

2016· article· en· W2542582624 on OpenAlexafffund
Joannie Desroches, Audrey Laurence, Michael Jermyn, Michael Pinto, Marie-Andrée Tremblay, Kevin Petrecca, Frédéric Leblond

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Analyst · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicSpectroscopy Techniques in Biomedical and Chemical Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal Neurological Institute and HospitalPolytechnique Montréal
FundersMitacsCanadian Network for Research and Innovation in Machining Technology, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsRaman spectroscopyMicroscopeWorkflowMicroscopyOpticsMaterials scienceRaman microscopeSpectroscopyFilter (signal processing)Biomedical engineeringComputer scienceMedicinePhysicsComputer visionRaman scatteringDatabase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ambient light artifacts can confound Raman spectroscopy measurements performed in a clinical setting such as during open surgery. However, requiring light sources to be turned off during intraoperative spectral acquisition can be impractical because it can slow down the procedure by requiring surgeons to acquire data under light conditions different from the routine clinical practice. Here a filter system is introduced allowing in vivo Raman spectroscopy measurements to be performed with the light source of a neurosurgical microscope turned on, without interfering with the standard procedure. Ex vivo and in vivo results on calf and human brain, respectively, show that when the new filter system is used there is no significant difference between Raman spectra acquired under pitch dark conditions or with the microscope light source turned on. This is important for the clinical translation of Raman spectroscopy because of the resulting decrease in total imaging time for each measurement and because the surgeon can now acquire spectroscopic data with no disruption of the surgical workflow.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.434
Teacher spread0.374 · 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

Citations15
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe AnalystSame topicSpectroscopy Techniques in Biomedical and Chemical ResearchFrench-language works237,207