Three-dimensional imaging of the spine using the EOS system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to evaluate the precision of three-dimensional geometry compared with computed tomography (CT) images. This retrospective study included patients who had undergone both imaging of the spine using the EOS imaging system and CT scanning of the spine. The apical vertebral orientation was also measured using the EOS imaging system and by CT. Other measures such as the Cobb angle and apical vertebral rotation and translation were used as the control variables to evaluate the potential discrepancy between the standing position in EOS imaging and the supine position in CT scanning. The apical vertebral orientations were 8.7° for the first measurement and 8.4° for the second measurement made by the first author, and 10.3° for the measurement made by the second author. The average of these measurements was 9.3° compared with 6.6° (P=0.65) obtained on CT scanning. The precision of EOS-based measurements of vertebral rotation has never been tested in clinical practice. Although it has limitations, this study suggests that the results obtained using EOS are comparable to those obtained on CT.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".