MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408665621 · doi:10.1117/12.3043327

Speckle noise reduction in coherent spatial frequency domain imaging

2025· article· en· W4408665621 on OpenAlexaff
Jie Jiao, Sidy Ndiongue, Maria A. Betty, Lindsay Kuramoto, Ofer Levi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Optical Sensing Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpeckle noiseSpeckle patternReduction (mathematics)Frequency domainNoise reductionNoise (video)OpticsComputer sciencePhysicsArtificial intelligenceComputer visionMathematicsImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This work applies spatial frequency domain imaging (SFDI) to extract optical absorption and reduced scattering values (μa and μs’) of tissue-like samples, with a coherent light source. Here, we evaluate SFDI illuminated by a multi-wavelength vertical-cavity-surface-emitting-laser (VCSEL) array, with selectable wavelengths of 680nm, 795nm and 850nm. The speckle noise is mitigated with a rapid current sweep and with the overlapping of up to three diode lasers per wavelength. The current sweep spans over the single- and multi- transverse mode regimes, to achieve a shorter coherence length and therefore reduce speckle-related noise. Results show a more accurate measurement for the reduced scattering than the absorption coefficient (average error of 1.8% and 11.5% respectively, with 850nm diodes) on tissue phantoms, with the current sweep applied, which is comparable to an incoherent LED source (4.4% and 13.6%). Further reduction in speckle-related noise is observed by illuminating with multiple diodes of the same wavelength. At 850nm, illumination with three diodes causes a noise of 11.5±3.3% in absorption measurements, which is lower than the noise when using a single diode (14.9±4.3%).

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.434
Threshold uncertainty score0.294

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Optical Sensing TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207