MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2028414401 · doi:10.1111/1556-4029.12060

Forensic Considerations for Preprocessing Effects on Clinical <scp>MDCT</scp> Scans

2013· article· en· W2028414401 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew Wade, Gerald J. Conlogue

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Forensic Sciences · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAutopsy Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPreprocessorScannerComputer scienceComputer visionArtificial intelligenceData pre-processingRaw dataImaging phantomIterative reconstructionPattern recognition (psychology)Computer graphics (images)Nuclear medicineMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Manipulation of digital photographs destined for medico-legal inquiry must be thoroughly documented and presented with explanation of any manipulations. Unlike digital photography, computed tomography (CT) data must pass through an additional step before viewing. Reconstruction of raw data involves reconstruction algorithms to preprocess the raw information into display data. Preprocessing of raw data, although it occurs at the source, alters the images and must be accounted for in the same way as postprocessing. Repeated CT scans of a gunshot wound phantom were made using the Toshiba Aquilion 64-slice multidetector CT scanner. The appearance of fragments, high-density inclusion artifacts, and soft tissue were assessed. Preprocessing with different algorithms results in substantial differences in image output. It is important to appreciate that preprocessing affects the image, that it does so differently in the presence of high-density inclusions, and that preprocessing algorithms and scanning parameters may be used to overcome the resulting artifacts.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.355
Threshold uncertainty score0.612

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.318 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations5
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Forensic SciencesSame topicAutopsy Techniques and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207