Sources of Variation in Quantitative Computed Tomography of the Lung
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
The goal of quantitative analysis of computed tomography (CT) scans is to understand the anatomic structure that is responsible for the physiological function of the lung. The gold standard for structural analysis requires the examination of tissue, which is not practical in most studies. Quantitative CT allows valuable information on lung structure to be obtained without removal of tissue from the body, thereby aiding longitudinal studies on chronic lung diseases. This review briefly discusses CT analysis of the lung and some of the sources of variation that can cause differences in the CT metrics used for analysis of lung disease. Although there are many sources of variation, this review will show that, if the study is properly designed to take into account these variations and if the CT scanner is properly calibrated, valuable information can be obtained from CT scans that should allow us to study the pathogenesis of lung disease and the effect of treatment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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