MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2883731840 · doi:10.1109/tbcas.2018.2840831

Superresolution Line Scan Image Sensor for Multimodal Microscopy

2018· article· en· W2883731840 on OpenAlexafffund
Chengzhi Winston Liu, Arshya Feizi, Navid Sarhangnejad, Glenn Gulak, Roman Genov

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Biomedical Circuits and Systems · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAdvanced Fluorescence Microscopy Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCMC Microsystems
KeywordsPixelImage resolutionOpticsImage sensorSub-pixel resolutionMaterials scienceDot pitchMicroscopyImage processingPhysicsArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceDigital image processingImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A low-cost contact scanning microscope is presented which performs optical imaging of millimeter-scale samples with multiple sensory modalities at a spatial resolution better than the pixel size in both x and y dimensions. The 7.5 mm 3.2 mm 0.35 m CMOS image sensor is comprised of 214 scanning lines of 256 pixels, each line horizontally shifted by 300 nm with respect to the adjacent lines. When scanning in the y dimension, this results in a staircase-like staggered-pixels organization with an effective spatial resolution in the x dimension of less than the pixel size, with a theoretical limit of 300 nm, subject to the light diffraction limit and to photodiode size-dependent spatial aliasing. The height of the resulting pixel "staircases" is capped at 2.5 mm by wrapping the 215th row back to the first row, yielding an approximately 2 mm 2.5 mm instantaneous scanning window size. The spatial resolution in the y dimension is set by the sample scanning rate and the frame rate, subject to the same limitations. Integration of multiple scanning lines naturally lends itself to the inclusion of multiple sensory modalities, with five modalities included as an example: High-resolution (up to 300 nm), fluorescence-sensitive, and triple-orientation light polarization-sensitive pixels. The resulting modified scanning pattern is digitized by on-chip column-parallel 2nd order Delta-Sigma ADCs with ENOB of 9.1 and is reconstructed into a full-resolution image in software. Experimental measurements, where contact-scanning is emulated by the sample image moving on an LCD monitor and projected through a lens, support the validity of the presented concept.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.306
Teacher spread0.290 · 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
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Biomedical Circuits and SystemsSame topicAdvanced Fluorescence Microscopy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207