MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2916267852 · doi:10.1142/s1793545819500081

Handheld diffuse optical breast scanner probe for cross-sectional imaging of breast tissue

2019· article· en· W2916267852 on OpenAlexafffund
Majid Shokoufi, Farid Golnaraghi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Innovative Optical Health Sciences · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOptical Imaging and Spectroscopy Techniques
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsDiffuse optical imagingBreast imagingImaging phantomBreast cancerOpticsBreast tissueScannerDetectorBiomedical engineeringMaterials scienceMedicinePhysicsMammographyCancerTomography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Diffuse optical spectroscopy is a relatively new, noninvasive and nonionizing technique for breast cancer diagnosis. In the present study, we have introduced a novel handheld diffuse optical breast scan (DOB-Scan) probe to measure optical properties of the breast in vivo and create functional and compositional images of the tissue. In addition, the probe gives more information about breast tissue’s constituents, which helps distinguish a healthy and cancerous tissue. Two symmetrical light sources, each including four different wavelengths, are used to illuminate the breast tissue. A high-resolution linear array detector measures the intensity of the back-scattered photons at different radial destinations from the illumination sources on the surface of the breast tissue, and a unique image reconstruction algorithm is used to create four cross-sectional images for four different wavelengths. Different from fiber optic-based illumination techniques, the proposed method in this paper integrates multi-wavelength light-emitting diodes to act as pencil beam sources into a scattering medium like breast tissue. This unique design and its compact structure reduce the complexity, size and cost of a potential probe. Although the introduced technique miniaturizes the probe, this study points to the reliability of this technique in the phantom study and clinical breast imaging. We have received ethical approval to test the DOB-Scan probe on patients and we are currently testing the DOB-Scan probe on subjects who are diagnosed with breast cancer.

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)0.001
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.384 · 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

Citations25
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Innovative Optical Health SciencesSame topicOptical Imaging and Spectroscopy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207