ArticleBiomedical optics express2026
Deep learning fusion of multi-channel imaging from polarization-sensitive optical coherence tomography.
Article in Biomedical optics express, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Multi-contrast polarization-sensitive optical coherence tomography (PS-OCT) provides complementary structural and polarization information that may improve epidural tissue classification. Here, we evaluated deep learning fusion of four PS-OCT channels, including intensity, phase retardation, degree of polarization uniformity (DOPU), and optic axis, using porcine (n = 6) and human (n = 5) spinal specimens. We benchmarked six multi-channel fusion strategies: Probability averaging, feature concatenation, trainable weighted output, shared-stage resnet, merged multi-channel input, and pooled data. Across subject-level nested cross-validation, multi-channel methods achieved modest but consistent accuracy improvements over the best single-channel baselines while reducing subject-to-subject variability. On porcine data, Probability Averaging increased mean validation accuracy by 3.46% (93.07% vs. 89.61% for the best single-channel baseline). On human data, fusion methods maintained the high single-channel baseline (approximately 97% to 98%) while modestly improving stability, with probability averaging achieving the highest mean validation accuracy (98.26%). In cross-testing, trainable weighted output achieved 92.32% versus 91.53% for the best porcine single-channel baseline, and probability averaging achieved 97.87% versus 97.75% for the best human single-channel baseline. On the human cohort, the gain in mean accuracy was small, but multi-channel fusion produced a statistically significant reduction in between-subject variance (Levene's p = 0.0108) and removed the need to know in advance which single channel would generalize best. Overall, multi-channel fusion improved classification performance and robustness, with probability averaging offering a favorable balance between accuracy and complexity because it requires no additional training beyond single-channel models.
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.