Validation of red blood cell flux and velocity estimations based on optical coherence tomography intensity fluctuations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present a validation of red blood cell flux and speed measurements based on the passage of erythrocytes through the OCT's focal volume. We compare the performance of the so-called RBC-passage OCT technique to co-localized and simultaneously acquired two-photon excitation fluorescence microscopy (TPEF) measurements. Using concurrent multi-modal imaging, we show that fluctuations in the OCT signal display highly similar features to TPEF time traces. Furthermore, we demonstrate an overall difference in RBC flux and speed of 2.5 ± 3.27 RBC/s and 0.12 ± 0.67 mm/s (mean ± S.D.), compared to TPEF. The analysis also revealed that the OCT RBC flux estimation is most accurate between 20 RBC/s to 60 RBC/s, and is severely underestimated at fluxes beyond 80 RBC/s. Lastly, our analysis shows that the RBC speed estimations increase in accuracy as the speed decreases, reaching a difference of 0.16 ± 0.25 mm/s within the 0-0.5 mm/s speed range.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".