MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4214829252 · doi:10.1117/12.2615265

Improving photoacoustic imaging of lymphatic dynamics in pigmented mice

2022· article· en· W4214829252 on OpenAlexaff
Vladislav Toronov, Balal Mian, Xun Zhou, Yeni H. Yücel

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPhotoacoustic and Ultrasonic Imaging
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's HospitalToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLymphatic systemPhotoacoustic imaging in biomedicineIn vivoMultispectral imageEx vivoBiomedical engineeringOptical imagingLymphChemistryPathologyBiologyComputer scienceOpticsMedicineComputer visionPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent advances in optical imaging and spectroscopy of biological tissues facilitated groundbreaking discoveries in physiology of the lymphatic system of mammals. One important aspect is the dynamics of the lymphatic drainage between the eyes and the brain, which was potentially linked to a number of diseases. A mouse is a versatile model providing convenient in-vivo and ex-vivo studies of lymphatic drainage by multispectral optoacoustic tomography (MSOT) using near-infrared exogenous tracers. The accuracy of the in-vivo spectral umixing of chromohores by MSOT still requires further improvement to achieve required resolution. To achieve this goal, we studied factors such as the spectrum of wavelengths and skin pigmentation affecting the quantitative accuracy of MSOT tracking of the novel hybrid photoacoustic-fluorescent contrast agent QC-1/BSA/BODIPY injected into the lymph of C57 pigmented mice. We also compared performances of various spectral algorithms.

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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.178
Teacher spread0.175 · 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
GenreMethods

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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPhotoacoustic and Ultrasonic Imaging→French-language works237,207→