MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1978519725 · doi:10.1088/0031-9155/51/3/018

Derivation of elastic stiffness from site-matched mineral density and acoustic impedance maps

2006· article· en· W1978519725 on OpenAlexaff
Kay Raum, Robin O. Cleveland, Françoise Peyrin, Pascal Laugier

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics in Medicine and Biology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicUltrasonics and Acoustic Wave Propagation
Canadian institutionsCanadian Nautical Research Society
FundersCentre National de la Recherche ScientifiqueDeutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst
KeywordsAcoustic impedanceBone mineralStiffnessElectrical impedanceMaterials sciencePorosityBone densityQuantitative computed tomographyMineralogyChemistryBiomedical engineeringAnalytical Chemistry (journal)Composite materialPhysicsOsteoporosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

200 MHz acoustic impedance maps and site-matched synchrotron radiation micro computed tomography (SR-muCT) maps of tissue degree of mineralization of bone (DMB) were used to derive the elastic coefficient c(33) in cross sections of human cortical bone. To accomplish this goal, a model was developed to relate the DMB accessible with SR-muCT to mass density. The formulation incorporates the volume fractions and densities of the major bone tissue components (collagen, mineral and water), and accounts for tissue porosity. We found that the mass density can be well modelled by a second-order polynomial fit to DMB (R(2) = 0.999) and appears to be consistent with measurements of many different types of mineralized tissues. The derived elastic coefficient c(33) correlated more strongly with the acoustic impedance (R(2) = 0.996) than with mass density (R(2) = 0.310). This finding suggests that estimates of c(33) made from measurements of the acoustic impedance are more reliable than those made from density measurements. Mass density and elastic coefficient were in the range between 1.66 and 2.00 g cm(-3) and 14.8 and 75.4 GPa, respectively. Although SAM inspection is limited to the evaluation of carefully prepared sample surfaces, it provides a two-dimensional quantitative estimate of elastic tissue properties at the tissue level.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations97
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics in Medicine and BiologySame topicUltrasonics and Acoustic Wave PropagationFrench-language works237,207