MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408505294 · doi:10.1364/ol.557992

Effective interscan time for enhanced <i>in vivo</i> choriocapillaris imaging with OCT angiography

2025· article· en· W4408505294 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Mohammad Shahidul Islam, Jun Song, Ansel Chen, Zaid Mammo, Myeong Jin Ju

Bibliographic record

VenueOptics Letters · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal and Vascular Pathologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAlzheimer Society Research ProgramCanadian Cancer Society
KeywordsOpticsAngiographyMedicinePreclinical imagingIn vivoRadiologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

imaging of the choriocapillaris (CC) remains challenging due to its dense microvascular structure and low reflectivity. While previous studies have explored various scanning protocols to enhance CC visualization, most approaches rely on oversampling, beam size adjustments, large numbers of repetitive B-scans (BM), and volume registration. However, interscan time-a critical parameter that influences flow contrast and vascular detail-has been largely overlooked. In this Letter, we introduce interscan time as a novel, to the best of our knowledge, CC imaging parameter and propose an optimized OCTA protocol by leveraging a 1.6 MHz FDML swept-source laser and step-bidirectional scanning method to investigate its impact across beam sizes and BM-scans. Our findings reveal that shorter interscan time significantly improves CC visualization by enhancing vessel contrast and preserving microvascular details, enabling better clinical assessment of retinal diseases such as age-related macular degeneration and diabetic retinopathy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOptics LettersSame topicRenal and Vascular PathologiesFrench-language works237,207