MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4211208067 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14663541

Photoacoustic Detection of Red Blood Cell Aggregation

2021· preprint· en· W4211208067 on OpenAlexaff
Eno Hysi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPhotoacoustic and Ultrasonic Imaging
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan UniversitySunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSaturation (graph theory)Photoacoustic imaging in biomedicineOxygenOxygen saturationOxygenationWavelengthChemistryAnalytical Chemistry (journal)Materials scienceSpectral lineRed blood cellBiophysicsOpticsChromatographyOptoelectronicsPhysicsMathematicsBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The potential of photoacoustic imaging for detecting red blood cell (RBC) aggregation is explored. Enhanced aggregation is observed in disorders such as diabetes impairing oxygen release into tissue. Simultaneous measurements of aggregation and oxygenation levels cannot be made using current tools. Photoacoustic detection of aggregation and assessment of oxygen saturation was investigated. A theoretical and experimental model of aggregation was developed using human and porcine RBCs. Frequency-domain analysis of the PA signals was used to derive the spectral slope and midband fit of the normalized power spectra for various hematorit and aggregation conditions. Oxygen saturation was assessed using multiple wavelengths of illumination. The experimental spectral slope (~0.3 dB/MHz) for non-aggregated samples agreed with the theory decreasing with increasing aggregate size. The midband fit increased by ~5 dB when the aggregate size reached the largest level while the oxygen saturation increased by > 20%. These results suggest that photoacoustic-radio-frequency-spectroscopic-parameters have the potential to monitor RBC aggregation and oxygenation level.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.187
Teacher spread0.181 · 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 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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPhotoacoustic and Ultrasonic ImagingFrench-language works237,207