Using digital inpainting to estimate incident light intensity for the calculation of red blood cell oxygen saturation from microscopy images
Bibliographic record
Abstract
can be measured by taking advantage of spectroscopic properties of hemoglobin. When this technique is applied to transmission microscopy, the calculation of saturation requires determination of incident light intensity at each pixel occupied by the red blood cell; this value is often approximated from a sequence of images as the maximum intensity over time. This method often fails when the red blood cells are moving too slowly, or if hematocrit is too large since there is not a large enough gap between the cells to accurately calculate the incident intensity value. A new method of approximating incident light intensity is proposed using digital inpainting. This novel approach estimates incident light intensity with an average percent error of approximately 3%, which exceeds the accuracy of the maximum intensity-based method in most cases. The error in incident light intensity corresponds to a maximum error of approximately 2% saturation. Therefore, though this new method is computationally more demanding than the traditional technique, it can be used in cases where the maximum intensity-based method fails (eg, stationary cells), or when higher accuracy is required.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".