Reproducibility of Peripheral Quantitative Computed Tomography Measurements at the Radius and Tibia in Healthy Pre- and Postmenopausal Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The objectives of this study were to utilise the XCT-2000 pQCT scanner to determine the mean values and the reproducibility of in vivo total, trabecular, and cortical volumetric bone measurements at distal and diaphyseal sites of the radius and the tibia, as well as calf muscle and subcutaneous fat areas, in healthy pre- and postmenopausal women. METHODS: Twenty-nine women (14 premenopausal and 15 postmenopausal) were recruited to participate in this study. Distal and diaphyseal sites of the radius (at 4% and 20% of the length of the radius) and tibia (at 4%, 38%, and 66% of the length of the tibia) were examined. RESULTS: The root mean square coefficient of variation for measurements at the distal tibia gave the most favorable reproducibility values for total (1.5%) and trabecular (1.6%) density, whereas the diaphyseal tibia showed the most favorable reproducibility value for cortical density (0.3%). The root mean square coefficients of variation for measurements of muscle and fat cross-sectional areas at the calf were 0.6% and 0.7%, respectively. At the distal tibia, the mean values for total (P < .05) and trabecular (P < .01) density were significantly lower in postmenopausal women than in premenopausal women. CONCLUSIONS: The data presented here indicate that XCT-2000 pQCT scans at the tibia provide highly reproducible measurements of total, cortical, and trabecular bone as well as muscle and fat cross-sectional areas. Furthermore, significant differences in volumetric bone measurements between healthy pre- and postmenopausal women were evident only at the distal tibia, suggesting that this site warrants further study.
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 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 | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".