The effect of probe placement on inter-trial variability when using the Cutometer MPA 580
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is limited data independently assessing the optimal use of the Cutometer MPA580. The purpose of this study is to test the hypothesis that the assessment of elastic recoil is significantly different when utilizing two different probe placement protocols. In protocol A, four trials were performed, in which the probe was removed from the skin between trials. In protocol B, the probe was not removed from the skin between trials. Fifty-four patients were enrolled and all completed the testing. When assessing elasticity (Ua/Uf), the inter-class correlation was 0.83 for protocol A and 0.48 for protocol B (p <0.001). There was no significant difference between individual trials for protocol A. Trial one of protocol B was significantly different (p < 0.001) than trials 2-4 for protocol B. Trial one of protocol B was not significantly different than any trial in protocol A. The results of this study suggest that the method in which a clinician performs repeated measure testing has a significant effect on the outcome measures when using the Cutometer. Removing the probe between trials appears to result in measures with higher reliability.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it