MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1963678352 · doi:10.1016/j.bonr.2015.02.003

Study of DXA-derived lateral–medial cortical bone thickness in assessing hip fracture risk

2015· article· en· W1963678352 on OpenAlexafffund
Yujia Long, William D. Leslie, Yunhua Luo

Bibliographic record

VenueBone Reports · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and osteoporosis research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersFermilabNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaResearch ManitobaManitoba Health Research Council
KeywordsHip fractureMedicineBone mineralConfidence intervalFemoral neckRepeatabilityOrthodonticsNuclear medicineFracture (geology)Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometryBone densityCortical boneInternal medicineOsteoporosisMathematicsAnatomyMaterials scienceStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

< 0.001). The capability of aBMD, NCBT, and HFRI in discriminating the hip fracture cases from the non-fracture ones, expressed as the area under the curve with 95% confidence interval, AUC (95% CI), is respectively 0.627 (0.593-0.657), 0.714 (0.644-0.784) and 0.839 (0.787-0.892). The short-term repeatability of aBMD, NCBT, and HFRI, measured by the coefficient of variation (CV, %), was found to be in the range of (0.64-1.22), (1.93-3.41), (3.10-4.16), respectively. We thus concluded that NCBT is potentially a better predictor of hip fracture risk.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.665

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.322 · 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 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

Citations21
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBone ReportsSame topicBone health and osteoporosis researchFrench-language works237,207