Assessing the reliability of MRI-CBCT image registration to visualize temporomandibular joints
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate image quality of two methods of registering MRI and CBCT images of the temporomandibular joint (TMJ), particularly regarding TMJ articular disc-condyle relationship and osseous abnormality. METHODS: MR and CBCT images for 10 patients (20 TMJs) were obtained and co-registered using two methods (non-guided and marker guided) using Mirada XD software (Mirada Medical Ltd, Oxford, UK). Three radiologists independently and blindly evaluated three types of images (MRI, CBCT and registered MRI-CBCT) at two times (T1 and T2) on two criteria: (1) quality of MRI-CBCT registrations (excellent, fair or poor) and (2) TMJ disc-condylar position and articular osseous abnormalities (osteophytes, erosions and subcortical cyst, surface flattening, sclerosis). RESULTS: 75% of the non-guided registered images showed excellent quality, and 95% of the marker-guided registered images showed poor quality. Significant difference was found between the non-guided and marker-guided registration (χ(2) = 108.5; p < 0.01). The interexaminer variability of the disc position in MRI [intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) = 0.50 at T1, 0.56 at T2] was lower than that in MRI-CBCT registered images [ICC = 0.80 (0.52-0.92) at T1, 0.84 (0.62-0.93) at T2]. Erosions and subcortical cysts were noticed less frequently in the MRI-CBCT images than in CBCT images. CONCLUSIONS: Non-guided registration proved superior to marker-guided registration. Although MRI-CBCT fused images were slightly more limited than CBCT alone to detect osseous abnormalities, use of the fused images improved the consistency among examiners in detecting disc position in relation to the condyle.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".