MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3126692504 · doi:10.1115/1.4050026

Eighty-Five Percent of Improved Optical Power Delivery to Epiretinal Prostheses Using Rigid Body Compensation Algorithm

2021· article· en· W3126692504 on OpenAlexaff
Nathaniel Mailhot, Ross Cheriton, Kaustubh Vyas, J P Cook, Steven Prawer, Karin Hinzer, Davide Spinello

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biomechanical Engineering · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Neural Engineering
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council CanadaUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReflector (photography)Compensation (psychology)ScleraComputer scienceOptical powerOpticsPower (physics)PhysicsMedicineSurgeryLight sourceLaser

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Vision impairment caused by degenerative retinal pathologies such as age-related macular degeneration can be treated using retinal implants. Such devices receive power and data using cables passing through a permanent surgical incision in the eye wall (sclera), which increases the risk to patients and surgical costs. A recently developed retinal implant design eliminates the necessity of the implant cable using a photonic power converter (PPC), which receives optical power and data through the pupil and is directed by an ellipsoidal reflector and micro-electromechanical mirror. We present a misalignment compensation algorithm model that accounts for rigid-body motions of the reflector relative to the eye and applies the correction to the mirror coordinates in the presence of angular misalignment of the reflector. We demonstrate that up to 85% of the nominal optical power can be delivered to the implant with axial reflector misalignments up to 30 deg using the compensation algorithm.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
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)0.0040.001

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Biomechanical EngineeringSame topicNeuroscience and Neural EngineeringFrench-language works237,207