Three-dimensional imaging of the spine using the EOS system
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 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.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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