MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2014590245 · doi:10.1088/0031-9155/55/4/012

Evaluation of imaging technologies to correct for photon attenuation in the overlying tissue for <i>in vivo</i> bone strontium measurements

2010· article· en· W2014590245 on OpenAlexaff
Christopher M. Heirwegh, David R. Chettle, Ana Pejović‐Milić

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics in Medicine and Biology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and osteoporosis research
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan UniversityMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStrontiumAnkleMaterials scienceSoft tissueAttenuationNuclear medicineMagnetic resonance imagingAttenuation coefficientBiomedical engineeringCorrection for attenuationTomographyUltrasoundNuclear magnetic resonanceOpticsRadiologyMedicinePhysicsAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The interpretation of measurements of bone strontium in vivo using energy dispersive x-ray fluorescence spectroscopy is presently hindered by overlying skin and soft-tissue absorption of the strontium x-rays. The use of imaging technologies to measure the overlying soft-tissue thickness at the index finger measuring site might allow correction of the strontium reading to estimate its concentration in bone. An examination of magnetic resonance (MR), computed tomography (CT) and high-frequency ultrasound (US) imaging technologies revealed that 55 MHz US had the smallest range of measurement uncertainty at 3.2% followed by 1 Tesla MR, 25 MHz US, 8 MHz US and CT at 4.3, 5.4, 6.6 and 7.1% uncertainty, respectively. Of these, only CT imaging appeared to underestimate total thickness (p < 0.05). Furthermore, an inter-study comparison on the accuracy of US measurements of the overlying tissue thickness at finger and ankle in nine subjects was investigated. The 8 MHz US system used in prior in vivo experiments was found to perform satisfactorily in a repeat study of ankle measurements, but indicated that finger thickness measurements may have been misread in previous studies by up to 17.7% (p < 0.025). Repeat ankle measurements were not significantly different from initial measurements at 2.2% difference.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.339
GPT teacher head0.502
Teacher spread0.162 · 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

Citations4
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics in Medicine and Biology→Same topicBone health and osteoporosis research→French-language works237,207→