MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4379141449 · doi:10.3390/mi14061191

Au-TiO2-Coated Spectroscopy-Based Human Teeth Disorder Detection Sensor: Design and Quantitative Analysis

2023· article· en· W4379141449 on OpenAlexafffund
Sumaiya Akhtar Mitu, Kawsar Ahmed, Francis M. Bui, Li Chen, Lassaad K. Smirani, Shobhit K. Patel, Vishal Sorathiya

Bibliographic record

VenueMicromachines · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPhotonic Crystal and Fiber Optics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUmm Al-Qura University
KeywordsMaterials scienceEnamel paintCementumAnalyteHuman toothSpectroscopyOptoelectronicsChemistryComposite materialChromatographyDentin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Human tooth functionality is the most important for the human body to become fit and healthy. Due to the disease attacks in human teeth, parts may lead to different fatal diseases. A spectroscopy-based photonic crystal fiber (PCF) sensor was simulated and numerically analyzed for the detection of dental disorders in the human body. In this sensor structure, SF11 is used as the base material, gold (Au) is used as the plasmonic material, and TiO2 is used within the gold and sensing analyte layer, and the sensing medium for the analysis of the teeth parts is the aqueous solution. The maximum optical parameter values for the human tooth parts enamel, dentine, and cementum in terms of wavelength sensitivity and confinement loss were obtained as 28,948.69 nm/RIU and 0.00015 dB/m for enamel, 33,684.99 nm/RIU and 0.00028 dB/m, and 38,396.56 nm/RIU and 0.00087 dB/m, respectively. The sensor is more precisely defined by these high responses. The PCF-based sensor for tooth disorder detection is a relatively recent development. Due to its design flexibility, robustness, and wide bandwidth, its application area has been spreading out. The offered sensor can be used in the biological sensing area to identify problems with human teeth.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.806
Threshold uncertainty score0.692

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMicromachinesSame topicPhotonic Crystal and Fiber OpticsFrench-language works237,207