Data consistency and classification model transferability across biomedical Raman spectroscopy systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Surgical guidance applications using Raman spectroscopy are being developed at a rapid pace in oncology to ensure safe and complete tumor resection during surgery. Clinical translation of these approaches relies on the acquisition of large spectral and histopathological data sets to train classification models. Data calibration must ensure compatibility across Raman systems and predictive model transferability to allow multi‐centric studies to be conducted. This paper addresses issues relating to Raman measurement standardization by first comparing Raman spectral measurements made on an optical phantom and acquired with nine distinct point probe systems and one wide‐field imaging instrument. Data standardization method led to normalized root‐mean‐square deviations between instruments of 2%. A classification model discriminating between white and gray matter was trained with one point probe system. When used to classify independent data sets acquired with the other systems, model predictions led to >95% accuracy, preliminarily demonstrating model transferability across different biomedical Raman spectroscopy instruments.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".