MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3008219559 · doi:10.1002/jbio.201960232

Optimal imaging windows of indocyanine green‐assisted near‐infrared dental imaging with rat model and its comparison to X‐ray imaging

2020· article· en· W3008219559 on OpenAlexaff
Zhongqiang Li, Thomas Hartzler, Alexandra Ramos, Michelle L. Osborn, Yanping Li, Shaomian Yao, Jian Xu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biophotonics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLaser Applications in Dentistry and Medicine
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersRoyal College of Surgeons of England
KeywordsIndocyanine greenMolarFluorescence-lifetime imaging microscopyBiomedical engineeringNuclear medicineMaterials scienceMedicineFluorescenceDentistryOpticsPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, we used rat animal model to compare the efficiency of indocyanine green (ICG)-assisted dental near-infrared fluorescence imaging with X-ray imaging, and we optimized the imaging window for both unerupted and erupted molars. The results show that the morphology of the dental structures was observed clearly from ICG-assisted dental images (especially through the endoscope). A better image contrast was easily acquired at the short imaging windows (<10 minutes) for unerupted and erupted molars. For unerupted molars, there is another optimized imaging window (48-96 hours) with a prominent glow-in-the-dark effect: only the molars remain bright. This study also revealed that the laser ablation of dental follicles can disrupt the molar development, and our method is able to efficiently detect laser-treated molars and acquire the precise morphology. Thus, ICG-assisted dental imaging has the potential to be a safer and more efficient imaging modality for the real-time diagnosis of dental diseases.

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)0.001
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.269 · 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

Citations9
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of BiophotonicsSame topicLaser Applications in Dentistry and MedicineFrench-language works237,207