MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2045607856 · doi:10.1097/brs.0b013e3181bdcaa4

Diagnostic Imaging of Spinal Deformities

2010· article· en· W2045607856 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSpine · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDigital Radiography and Breast Imaging
Canadian institutionsHôpital Notre-DameCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineImaging phantomImage qualityRadiographyNuclear medicineScoliosisImage noiseScannerWilcoxon signed-rank testRadiologySurgeryArtificial intelligenceImage (mathematics)Computer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

STUDY DESIGN: Clinical trial comparing image quality and entrance dose between Biospace EOS system, a new slot-scanning radiographic device, and a Fuji FCR 7501S computed radiography (CR) system for 50 patients followed for spinal deformities. OBJECTIVE: Based on their physical properties, slot-scanners show the potential to produce image quality comparable to CR systems using less radiation. This article validates this assertion by comparing a new slot-scanner to a CR system through a wide-ranging evaluation of dose and image quality for scoliosis examinations. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: For each patient included in this study, lateral and posteroanterior images were acquired with both systems. For each system, entrance dose was measured for different anatomic locations. METHODS: Dose and image quality being directly related, comparable images were obtained using the same radiograph tube voltage on both systems while tube currents were selected to match signal-to-noise ratios on a phantom. Different techniques were defined with respect to patient's thickness about the iliac crests. Given dose amplitudes expected for scoliosis examinations, optically stimulated luminescence dosimeters were chosen as optimal sensors. Two radiologists and 2 orthopedists evaluated the images in a randomized order using a questionnaire targeting anatomic landmarks. Visibility of the structures was rated on a 4 level scale. Image quality assessment was analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. RESULTS: Average skin dose was reduced from 6 to 9 times in the thoracoabdominal region when using the slot-scanner instead of CR. Moreover, image quality was significantly better with EOS for all structures in the frontal view (P < 0.006) and lateral view (P < 0.04), except for lumbar spinous processes, better seen on the CR (P < 0.003). CONCLUSION: We established that the EOS system offers overall enhanced image quality while reducing drastically the entrance dose for the patient.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.390
Threshold uncertainty score0.239

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.247 · 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