Design and validation of a convolutional neural network for fast, model-free blood flow imaging with multiple exposure speckle imaging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multiple exposure speckle imaging has demonstrated its improved accuracy compared to single exposure speckle imaging for relative quantitation of blood flow in vivo . However, the calculation of blood flow maps relies on a pixelwise non-linear fit of a multi-parametric model to the speckle contrasts. This approach has two major drawbacks. First, it is computer-intensive and prevents real time imaging and, second, the mathematical model is not universal and should in principle be adapted to the type of blood vessels. We evaluated a model-free machine learning approach based on a convolutional neural network as an alternative to the non-linear fit approach. A network was designed and trained with annotated speckle contrast data from microfluidic experiments. The neural network performances are then compared to the non-linear fit approach applied to in vitro and in vivo data. The study demonstrates the potential of convolutional networks to provide relative blood flow maps from multiple exposure speckle data in real time.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".