MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414210377 · doi:10.1364/boe.571299

Noninvasive estimation of superficial layer thickness using multi-channel diffuse correlation spectroscopy

2025· article· en· W4414210377 on OpenAlexafffund
Saeed Samaei, Daniel Milej, Keith St. Lawrence

Bibliographic record

VenueBiomedical Optics Express · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicSpectroscopy and Chemometric Analyses
Canadian institutionsLawson Health Research InstituteWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsImaging phantomDiffuse optical imagingBlood flowPhoton diffusionSensitivity (control systems)Cerebral blood flowPerfusionDiffuse reflectance infrared fourier transform

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Diffuse correlation spectroscopy (DCS) is a promising, noninvasive, light-based method for continuous bedside monitoring of cerebral blood flow. However, its sensitivity to brain tissue is affected by extracerebral layers. Although layered-model analysis improves cerebral perfusion measurement accuracy, it requires precise knowledge of the properties of superficial layers. To address this challenge, we demonstrate a method for quantifying superficial blood flow dynamics and thickness using three-channel DCS measurements. The approach was validated via simulation and layered phantom experiments. Results demonstrated that an accurate superficial-layer blood flow index can be obtained by adjusting photon count rates at short separations. In turn, this enabled estimation of the superficial-layer thickness and the lower-layer blood flow index from DCS data acquired at two long source-detector separations.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 designObservational
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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiomedical Optics ExpressSame topicSpectroscopy and Chemometric AnalysesFrench-language works237,207