MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Examining the Impact of Sample Thickness Variations on the Hyperspectral Radiometric Responses of Flowing Blood

2022· article· en· W4295431107 on OpenAlexafffund
Gladimir V. G. Baranoski, Spencer R. Van Leeuwen

Bibliographic record

Venue2022 44th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine & Biology Society (EMBC) · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsHyperspectral imagingTransmittanceReflectivityRemote sensingSample (material)Materials scienceEnvironmental scienceRadiometric datingOpticsBiological systemChemistryGeologyPhysicsOptoelectronicsBiologyChromatography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The hyperspectral reflectance and transmittance of flowing blood samples are employed in a wide range of biomedical applied research initiatives such as the detection and monitoring of hematological abnormalities. The success of these initiatives is tied to the correct interpretation of these radiometric quantities. This, in turn, requires a comprehensive understanding about their sensitivity to variations in the experimental conditions in which they have been obtained. In this paper, we aim to contribute to these efforts by systematically examining the effects of sample thickness variations on these quantities. More specifically, we employed controlled in silico experiments to assess these effects on samples with different biophysical characteristics, notably their hematocrit, hemolysis level and orientation of their constituent cells with respect to the flow direction. To ensure a high degree of fidelity in our experiments, we used a first-principles simulation framework supported by measured data. Our findings unveil distinct spectrally-dependent trends associated with reflectance and transmittance changes elicited by sample thickness variations.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.591
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.128
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.261 · 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.

Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue2022 44th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine & Biology Society (EMBC)Same topicClinical Laboratory Practices and Quality ControlFrench-language works237,207