Three-Dimension Epithelial Segmentation in Optical Coherence Tomography of the Oral Cavity Using Deep Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper aims to simplify the application of optical coherence tomography (OCT) for the examination of subsurface morphology in the oral cavity and reduce barriers towards the adoption of OCT as a biopsy guidance device. The aim of this work was to develop automated software tools for the simplified analysis of the large volume of data collected during OCT. Imaging and corresponding histopathology were acquired in-clinic using a wide-field endoscopic OCT system. An annotated dataset (n = 294 images) from 60 patients (34 male and 26 female) was assembled to train four unique neural networks. A deep learning pipeline was built using convolutional and modified u-net models to detect the imaging field of view (network 1), detect artifacts (network 2), identify the tissue surface (network 3), and identify the presence and location of the epithelial–stromal boundary (network 4). The area under the curve of the image and artifact detection networks was 1.00 and 0.94, respectively. The Dice similarity score for the surface and epithelial–stromal boundary segmentation networks was 0.98 and 0.83, respectively. Deep learning (DL) techniques can identify the location and variations in the epithelial surface and epithelial–stromal boundary in OCT images of the oral mucosa. Segmentation results can be synthesized into accessible en face maps to allow easier visualization of changes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".