Fast analysis of multiple exposure speckle data to provide relative blood flow maps using convolutional neural networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Laser Speckle Contrast Imaging is a well-established technique able to produce relative blood flow maps contactless and without using dyes. It relies on the statistical analysis of dynamic speckle images, observed when a coherent light is used to illuminate a medium that contains moving scatterers. The local speckle contrast is related to the movements of the scatterers. Multiple exposure speckle imaging (MESI) is a variant of the technique that takes advantage of multiple exposure data to retrieve more quantitative flow maps by accounting for the unwanted and superimposed contribution of static scatterers. Yet, in MESI, a model is adjusted pixelwise to the experimental data requiring long computation times and an a priori guess on the flow regimes. These issues hindered so far, the translation of MESI to clinical applications though some studies have already demonstrated its potential. Here we propose an alternative method based on Convolutional Neural Networks to analyze MESI data. The proposed CNN architecture has been trained and validated using experimental data acquired on calibrated microfluidics flow phantoms. Then, the trained network was applied to analyze MESI data acquired in vivo in mice brain. In addition to be model-bias-free, we have found that the CNN approach infers flow maps much faster than the classical pixelwise regression approach. This new approach is promising for the clinical translation of MESI.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".