On the Sensitivity of Skin Spectral Responses to Variations in the Thickness of the Cutaneous Tissues
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A wide range of devices are being routinely used in the noninvasive screening and monitoring of medical conditions through the analysis of skin spectral responses. The correct interpretation of these responses often depends on the availability of high-fidelity characterization datasets for the selected specimens. More specifically, the higher their fidelity, the more effective the quantification of changes observed in a given biophysical variable of interest. Skin thickness is among the most relevant of these parameters since it plays a pivotal role in the attenuation (scattering and absorption) of light traversing the cutaneous tissues. Transient and permanent physiological processes, such as tanning and ageing, can result in significant time-dependent thickness variations. These, in turn, can introduce biases in the comparison of skin spectral responses obtained at different time instances. In this paper, we investigate the impact of thickness variations on skin reflectance with respect to different regions of light spectrum. Our findings are expected to contribute to the mitigation of interpretation errors and, thus, to the enhancement of noninvasive screening and monitoring procedures based on skin spectral responses.
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 | 0.009 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".