Lensless inline digital holography versus Fourier ptychography: phase estimation of a large transparent bead
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lensless inline digital holographic microscopy (LI-DHM) and Fourier ptychographic microscopy (FPM) are two widespread quantitative phase imaging (QPI) techniques. They have been employed in various fields, especially for biological slice imaging because of their simplicity in use, stability in structure, and also large field of view. Spherical phase response (for example from HeLa cells) is commonly observed in biological imagery. As a consequence, for calibration and validation purposes, small (several to tenth of microns in diameter) transparent microbeads have been used as standards. Phase imaging of their large counterparts (hundreds of microns in diameter) using either LI-DHM or FPM has not been reported so far. We are aiming to analyze the phase response of a 146-μm soda-lime microsphere. It has been immersed in Canada balsam to reduce phase difference and to avoid overexposed diffraction rings. The phase estimation issue has been tackled using approaches that involve either Gerchberg–Saxton type algorithms or an inverse problem-based procedure. Confronting the results confirms the QPI capability for both imaging techniques to assess phase responses from such a large transparent object.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it