MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1994186193 · doi:10.3109/10929080400018122

3D reconstruction of the proximal femur with low-dose digital stereoradiography

2004· article· en· W1994186193 on OpenAlexaff
Anthony Le Bras, S. Laporte, V. Bousson, David Mitton, Jacques A. de Guise, Jean Denis Laredo, Wafa Skalli

Bibliographic record

VenueComputer Aided Surgery · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplasty
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFemurReproducibilityRadiographyWilcoxon signed-rank testDigital radiography3D reconstructionComputer scienceOsteoporosisReliability (semiconductor)MedicineSurgical planningArtificial intelligenceNuclear medicineRadiologyOrthodonticsMathematicsSurgeryMann–Whitney U testPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Accurate three-dimensional (3D) geometry of the proximal femur may be helpful for fracture risk evaluation, as well as for planning and assisting surgical procedures. The purpose of this study was to apply and validate a stereoradiographic 3D reconstruction method on the proximal femur from radiographic contours identified on bi-planar radiographs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-five excised non-pathologic proximal femurs were investigated using a low-dose digital radiographic device. Three-dimensional personalized models were reconstructed using the Non-Stereo Corresponding Contours (NSCC) algorithm. Three-dimensional CT-scan reconstructions were defined as geometric references for the comparison protocol, in order to assess the accuracy and reproducibility of the personalized 3D stereoradiographic reconstructions. In addition, the reliability of a set of 3D parameters obtained from stereoradiographic models was evaluated. RESULTS: This study demonstrated the validity of the NSCC method when applied to the proximal femur, with good results for accuracy (mean error = 0.7 mm) and reproducibility (Wilcoxon test: p > 0.28). Moreover, a precision study for the set of 3D parameters yielded a coefficient of variation lower than 5%. CONCLUSIONS: Once this approach has been validated in vivo, it should find multiple applications in therapeutic fields (e.g., for surgical planning, computer assisted surgery, etc.), as well as in diagnostic contexts (e.g., equilibrium studies or osteoporosis fracture risk assessment).

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.189 · 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

Citations70
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComputer Aided SurgerySame topicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplastyFrench-language works237,207