MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2095626172 · doi:10.1186/1748-7161-4-s2-o15

Test-retest standard error of measurements for full-torso surface topography parameters in healthy teenagers

2009· article· en· W2095626172 on OpenAlexaff
EM Watkins, Éric Parent, M Emrani, Doug Hill

Bibliographic record

VenueScoliosis · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfrared Thermography in Medicine
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTorsoMedicineTest (biology)Surface (topology)Medical physicsBiomedical engineeringAnatomyGeologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To assess the test-retest standard error of measurement (SEM) of full-torso surface topography (ST) parameters in adolescents without spinal deformities. ST is used to quantify the external deformity of the torso due to scoliosis. A normative ST database is being developed to help interpret the ST parameters used to describe scoliosis. Test-retest SEM has not been estimated for most parameters in this population. Twenty-two healthy volunteers between 10-17 years old, with a body mass index of 19.1 ± 3.3 kg/m2, scoliometer measure of 3.6° ± 2.5°, and without pain were included. Four Minolta 910 Laser Scanners and a standard positioning frame were used to record ST scans. One evaluator positioned all subjects, marked 11 reference points, and scanned. Immediately after, reference points were erased, landmarking and scanning repeated. ST parameters were extracted with custom designed software in Matlab by one evaluator digitizing reference points. Nineteen previously published and 7 newly proposed ST parameters were extracted. Test-retest standard error of measurement was calculated for each parameter. SEM was estimated for the minimum, maximum and the range of within-subject values for parameters extracted. SEM < 4 mm, < 5° or < 0.2 for a ratio were considered adequate based on values in patients with scoliosis. (Figure 1 ) Figure 1 Test-retest SEM of 15 of 26 ST parameters in healthy adolescents were found adequate for developing a normative database. Six of the 7 newly developed parameters had adequate SEM.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.283 · 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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScoliosisSame topicInfrared Thermography in MedicineFrench-language works237,207