MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4254759360 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14661159

Detection and monitoring for cancer and abnormal vasculature by photoacoustic signal characterization of structural morphology

2021· preprint· en· W4254759360 on OpenAlexafffund
Jason Zalev

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPhotoacoustic and Ultrasonic Imaging
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCoral Reef Conservation ProgramNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsPhotoacoustic imaging in biomedicineTransducerSIGNAL (programming language)Computer scienceAcousticsResolution (logic)High resolutionPhotoacoustic tomographyNoise (video)Finite element methodBiomedical engineeringComputer visionArtificial intelligenceOpticsImage (mathematics)PhysicsEngineeringGeologyRemote sensing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Photoacoustic systems can produce high-resolution, high-contracts images of vascular structures. To reconstruct images at very high-resolution, signals must be collected from many transducer locations, which can be time consuming due to limitations in transducer array technology, In this thesis a method is presented to discriminate between normal and abnormal tissue based on the structural morphology of vasculature and permits data to be acquired quickly. To demonstrate that the approach may be useful for cancer detection, a special simulator that produces photoacoustic signal from 3D models of vascular tissue is developed. Validation of the simulator is performed against a derived exact equation for finite-length cylindrical photoacoustic sources and through FEM models. Results show that is possible to differentiate tissue classed even when it is not possible to resolve individual blood vessels. Performance of the algorithm remains strong as the number of transducer locations decreases and in the presence of noise.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.475
Threshold uncertainty score0.883

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations7
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPhotoacoustic and Ultrasonic ImagingFrench-language works237,207