An Analysis Algorithm for Measuring Airway Lumen and Wall Areas from High-Resolution Computed Tomographic Data
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
High-resolution computed tomography (HRCT) has been used to examine airway narrowing. We developed an automated computed tomographic image analysis algorithm (computed tomographic airway morphometry; CTAM) to measure airway lumen area (Ai ), airway wall area (Awa), and airway angle of orientation. Tubes of varying size were embedded in Styrofoam and then scanned at angles between 0 degrees and 50 degrees to assess the accuracy of measurements made with CTAM. Two excised pig lungs were fixed in inflation, sectioned, and scanned. Ai and Awa were measured planimetrically from the cut surfaces to optimize CTAM measurement parameters. In CTAM, Ai was defined according to an airway-size-dependent threshold value, and total Awa was determined through a score-guided erosion method. Results were compared with measurements made through a previously validated method (manual method). CTAM provided accurate measurements of the tubes' Ai values at all angles; Awa was overestimated in direct relation to airway size. The manual method underestimated Ai and overestimated Awa in a manner directly related to airway size as well as to airway angle of orientation. In the excised lung, the mean errors of Ai and Awa measurements made with CTAM were 0.52 +/- 0.24 mm(2) and 0.17 +/- 0.32 mm(2) (mean +/- SEM), respectively. Ai errors with the manual method were similar, but Awa was overestimated to a greater degree (6.3 +/- 0.38 mm(2); p < 0.01) and the error was proportional to Awa (r = 0.64; p < 0.01). CTAM allows accurate measurements of airway dimensions and angle of orientation.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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