MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Validation of Microfocus Computed Tomography in the Evaluation of Bone Implant Specimens

2005· article· en· W2050307961 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nele Stoppie, Jan‐Paul van der Waerden, John A. Jansen, Joke Duyck, Martine Wevers, Ignace Naert

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and osteoporosis research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputed tomographyImplantMedicineDentistryTomographyNuclear medicineRadiologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Microfocus computed tomography (muCT) is an emerging technique owing to its speed, full three-dimensional information, and nondestructive properties. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to explore the efficacy of a muCT system (Philips HOMX 161, Philips Medical Systems GmbH, Hamburg, Germany) for visualization of the bone structure around screw-type titanium implants by comparing muCT images with their histologic homologues. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eight screw-type titanium implants were placed in the femoral condyles of two goats. After the excised implant-bone specimens were embedded in resin, three-dimensional muCT of the excised implant and bone specimens was performed. Histologic sections were subsequently made. A total of 150 histologic sections were matched with muCT images. RESULTS: Bone trabeculae were clearly visible on the muCT scans. However, bone close to the implant or present in the apical surface features of the implant could not be detected. The overall matching between muCT scans (slices) and the histologic sections was 89%. CONCLUSION: Investigation of trabecular bone around titanium implants by muCT can be considered highly reliable for determining trabecular bone parameters, with the exception of measuring direct bone-to-implant contact.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.192
GPT teacher head0.509
Teacher spread0.317 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations69
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related ResearchSame topicBone health and osteoporosis researchFrench-language works237,207