MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2921560682 · doi:10.1117/12.2510106

High spatial resolution and large field of view mobile phone-based microscopy with adaptive phone screen illumination (Conference Presentation)

2019· article· en· W2921560682 on OpenAlexaff
Sara Kheireddine, Ayyappasamy Sudalaiyadum Perumal, Dan V. Nicolau, Sebastian Wachsmann‐Hogiu

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicImage Processing Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLens (geology)Computer scienceField of viewImage resolutionComputer visionPixelMobile phoneResolution (logic)MicrofluidicsFrame rateArtificial intelligenceFocus (optics)OpticsImage sensorCamera phoneCamera lensComputer graphics (images)Materials sciencePhysicsNanotechnologyTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lens-based imaging approaches are faced with a trade-off between resolution and field-of-view (FOV). Generally, the greater the resolvable detail in a sample, the smaller the FOV we can observe. In our lab, we study the behaviour of microorganisms within confined spaces using microfluidic devices. In order to capture the full scope of their behaviour, we need to be able to discern individual microorganisms as well as observe the full microfluidic device area in real time. As such, visualizing such systems can be challenging, since we require an imaging system that can provide a resolution as high as 1 um, with a FOV large enough to fit our region of interest. To that end, we used the Nokia Lumia 1020 mobile phone, which has a 41.3 megapixel (MP) image sensor with a pixel size of 1.14 um, with an external lens attached to the camera for better focus, and we characterized the imaging system to have a spatial resolution of 1.2 um, with a FOV of 3.6 x 2.7 mm, and a working distance of 0.6 mm. Moreover, we used the screen of a Retina display Apple device as a versatile illumination source for this system. The screen is used to project various illumination patterns onto the specimen being imaged, each corresponding to a different illumination mode, with the Nokia phone capturing the resulting image. We tested our system by using it to image microorganisms such as Escherichia coli and Euglena gracilis within our microfluidic devices.

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 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 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 score0.766
Threshold uncertainty score0.299

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicImage Processing Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207