MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Validation of the relative 3D orientation of vertebrae reconstructed by bi-planar radiography

2004· article· en· W2102805875 on OpenAlexaff
Raphaël Dumas, Anthony Le Bras, Nicolas Champain, M. Savidan, David Mitton, G. Kalifa, Jean-Paul Steib, Jacques A. de Guise, Wafa Skalli

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Engineering & Physics · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicScoliosis diagnosis and treatment
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOrientation (vector space)PlanarRadiographyOrthodonticsMaterials scienceBiomedical engineeringComputer scienceMedicineMathematicsGeometryRadiologyComputer graphics (images)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The three dimensional (3D) reconstruction of the spine can be obtained by stereoradiographic techniques. To be safely used on a routine clinics basis, stereoradiography must provide both accurate vertebral shape and coherent position. Although the accuracy of the reconstructed morphology of the vertebrae is well documented, only few authors studied the accuracy of the vertebral orientation. Therefore, this paper focuses on the evaluation of the orientation accuracy of the reconstructed vertebrae (obtained by non-stereo corresponding point technique) considering either a 178 point vertebral model or a 6 point vertebral model (previously proposed in the literature). Five dried vertebrae were fixed on holders containing four markers each. The 3D reconstruction of both vertebrae and markers were obtained by stereoradiographic techniques. Using least square method matching from one position to another, the relative orientation was computed for the vertebral models (6 or 178 points) and the four markers. These vertebral and holder orientations were compared (considering the holder's one as reference). The repeatability of these relative orientations (vertebrae and holders) was also evaluated. The mean (RMS) orientation error of 178 point vertebral model was 0.6 degrees (0.8 degrees ), for lateral rotation, 0.7 degrees (1.0 degrees ) for sagittal rotation and 1.4 degrees (1.9 degrees ) for axial rotation. The intra-observer repeatability was 0.5 degrees (0.7 degrees ) for lateral rotation, 0.7 degrees (0.8 degrees ) for sagittal rotation and 0.9 degrees (1.2 degrees ) for axial rotation. The orientation was found more accurate and precise when using the 178 point vertebral model than when using the basic 6 point vertebral model. The relative orientation (in post-operative follow-up with respect to the pre-operative examination) of the vertebrae of one scoliotic patient was performed as an example of clinical application. The stereoradiographic method is a reliable 3D quantitative tool to assess the spine deformity, that can be used in clinics for the follow-up of scoliotic patients.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.217 · 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

Citations32
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical Engineering & PhysicsSame topicScoliosis diagnosis and treatmentFrench-language works237,207