MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Polymeric biomaterials for biophotonic applications

2018· review· en· W2887262221 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBioactive Materials · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOptical Coherence Tomography Applications
Canadian institutionsAssumption University
FundersNational Institute of Biomedical Imaging and BioengineeringNational Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin DiseasesNational Cancer InstituteNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsMaterials scienceBiocompatible materialNanotechnologyOptical materialsOptical imagingFabricationBiomedical engineeringOptoelectronicsOpticsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the growing importance of optical techniques in medical diagnosis and treatment, there exists a pressing need to develop and optimize materials platform for biophotonic applications. Particularly, the design of biocompatible and biodegradable materials with desired optical, mechanical, chemical, and biological properties is required to enable clinically relevant biophotonic devices for translating in vitro optical techniques into in situ and in vivo use. This technological trend propels the development of natural and synthetic polymeric biomaterials to replace traditional brittle, nondegradable silica glass based optical materials. In this review, we present an overview of the advances in polymeric optical material development, optical device design and fabrication techniques, and the accompanying applications to imaging, sensing and phototherapy.

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.962
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.281 · 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