MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Bone Mineral Measurement of Phalanges: Comparison of Radiographic Absorptiometry and Area Dual X-ray Absorptiometry

2000· article· en· W2077763279 on OpenAlexaff
M Gulam, Mike M. Thornton, Anthony B. Hodsman, David W. Holdsworth

Bibliographic record

VenueRadiology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and osteoporosis research
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRadiographyBone mineralNuclear medicinePhalanxDual-energy X-ray absorptiometryOsteoporosisDigital radiographyRadiologyAnatomyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With a standard, image-intensifier-based, digital radiographic system, high-spatial-resolution images of the hand were acquired for analysis of phalangeal bone mineral density with dual x-ray absorptiometry (DXA). Results with phalangeal DXA had precision of plus or minus 0.67% and accuracy of 4.1% and correlated well with those with radiographic absorptiometry. This phalangeal DXA technique is potentially useful for clinical diagnosis of osteoporosis.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 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

Citations27
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRadiologySame topicBone health and osteoporosis researchFrench-language works237,207