MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1482685738 · doi:10.1044/sasd24.3.115

Understanding Image Resolution and Quality in Videofluoroscopy

2015· article· en· W1482685738 on OpenAlexaff
Melanie Péladeau-Pigeon, Catriona M. Steele

Bibliographic record

VenuePerspectives on Swallowing and Swallowing Disorders (Dysphagia) · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDysphagia Assessment and Management
Canadian institutionsHolland Bloorview Kids Rehabilitation HospitalMuscular Dystrophy CanadaUniversity of TorontoToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFluoroscopyImage qualityMedical physicsSwallowingSet (abstract data type)Image (mathematics)Quality (philosophy)Computer visionArtificial intelligenceRadiologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Current best practice recommendations for videofluoroscopic swallowing studies (VFSS) suggest that fluoroscopy should be performed either on a continuous setting or at 30 pulses per second (pps). Image capture should likewise be set to maximum resolution (i.e., 30 frames per second [fps]). In this article, we discuss choices in technical settings that may result in the output of fewer than 30 unique images per second or result in image distortions. We also describe a test that can be used to confirm image capture quality and rate using an analog metronome. Clinicians and researchers need to be aware of these issues and the limitations they bring to videofluoroscopy review and analysis.

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)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.079
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.117

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.079
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.008
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
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 head0.161
GPT teacher head0.427
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations9
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePerspectives on Swallowing and Swallowing Disorders (Dysphagia)Same topicDysphagia Assessment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207