MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2754004990 · doi:10.1142/s1793545817420068

Practical obstacles and their mitigation strategies in compressional optical coherence elastography of biological tissues

2017· article· en· W2754004990 on OpenAlexaff
Vladimir Y. Zaitsev, Alexander L. Matveyev, Lev A. Matveev, Ekaterina V. Gubarkova, Alexander A. Sovetsky, Marina A. Sirotkina, Grigory V. Gelikonov, Elena V. Zagaynova, Natalia D. Gladkova, I. Alex Vitkin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Innovative Optical Health Sciences · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUltrasound Imaging and Elastography
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
FundersRussian Foundation for Basic Research
KeywordsElastographyCoherence (philosophical gambling strategy)CurvatureStiffnessOptical coherence tomographyModulusNonlinear systemMaterials scienceAcousticsBiomedical engineeringOpticsComputer sciencePhysicsUltrasoundMathematicsComposite materialMedicineGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we point out some practical obstacles arising in realization of compressional optical coherence elastography (OCE) that have not attracted sufficient attention previously. Specifically, we discuss (i) complications in quantification of the Young modulus of tissues related to partial adhesion between the OCE probe and soft intervening reference layer sensor, (ii) distorting influence of tissue surface curvature/corrugation on the subsurface strain distribution mapping, (iii) ways of signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) enhancement in OCE strain mapping when periodic averaging is not realized, and (iv) potentially significant influence of tissue elastic nonlinearity on quantification of its stiffness. Potential practical approaches to mitigate the effects of these complications are also described.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.336 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations82
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Innovative Optical Health SciencesSame topicUltrasound Imaging and ElastographyFrench-language works237,207