MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3147026690 · doi:10.1364/boe.424045

Volumetric tumor delineation and assessment of its early response to radiotherapy with optical coherence tomography

2021· article· en· W3147026690 on OpenAlexafffund
Valentin Demidov, Natalia Demidova, Layla Pires, Olga Demidova, Costel Flueraru, Brian C. Wilson, I. Alex Vitkin

Bibliographic record

VenueBiomedical Optics Express · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOptical Coherence Tomography Applications
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council CanadaSeneca PolytechnicUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsOptical coherence tomographySpeckle patternPreclinical imagingRadiation therapyIn vivoTomographyPathologyMedical imagingBiomedical engineeringMedicineNuclear medicineRadiologyComputer scienceBiologyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Texture analyses of optical coherence tomography (OCT) images have shown initial promise for differentiation of normal and tumor tissues. This work develops a fully automatic volumetric tumor delineation technique employing quantitative OCT image speckle analysis based on Gamma distribution fits. We test its performance in-vivo using immunodeficient mice with dorsal skin window chambers and subcutaneously grown tumor models. Tumor boundaries detection is confirmed using epi-fluorescence microscopy, combined photoacoustic-ultrasound imaging, and histology. Pilot animal study of tumor response to radiotherapy demonstrates high accuracy, objective nature, novelty of the proposed method in the volumetric separation of tumor and normal tissues, and the sensitivity of the fitting parameters to radiation-induced tissue changes. Overall, the developed methodology enables hitherto impossible longitudinal studies for detecting subtle tissue alterations stemming from therapeutic insult.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.816
Threshold uncertainty score0.717

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations20
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiomedical Optics ExpressSame topicOptical Coherence Tomography ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207