Automated quantitative microstructural analysis of metastatically involved vertebrae: Effects of stereologic model and spatial resolution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Preclinical models of spinal metastases allow for the application of micro-image based structural assessments, however, large data sets resulting from high resolution scanning motivate a need for robust automated analysis tools. Accurate assessment of changes in vertebral architecture, however, may depend both on the resolution of images acquired and the models used to represent the structural data. OBJECTIVE: To apply a recently developed automated μCT based analysis tool to quantify the effect of diffuse metastatic disease on rat vertebral architecture at multiple resolutions. It was hypothesized that automated methods could accurately quantify differences in vertebral microstructure and that diffuse metastatic disease could be shown to have significant negative architectural effects on trabecular bone independent of stereologic model and resolution. METHODS: μCT images acquired at 14 μm(3) of healthy and metastatically involved whole lumbar rat vertebrae were analyzed at high, medium and low (8.725, 17.45, and 34.9 μm(3)) resolutions using an automated algorithm to yield micro-structural measures of the trabecular centrum and cortical shell. The images analyzed at different resolutions were obtained via up/downsampling of the acquired image data. Trabecular thickness was evaluated with the Parfitt and Hildebrand models, and anisotropy was evaluated through calculation of mean intercept length. RESULTS: Significant differences in microstructural parameters measured in comparing healthy and metastatically involved vertebrae were affected by resolution, however, relative anisotropy was maintained. The Parfitt and Hilderbrand models yielded similar structural differences between healthy and metastatic vertebrae, however, the Hildebrand model was limited due to segmentation accuracy required for its automated application. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in microstructural parameters generated through automated analysis at high resolution suggest that diffuse MT1 osteolytic destruction in whole rat vertebrae results primarily in loss of trabeculae in the metastatic vertebrae, as opposed to trabecular thinning. The sensitivity of the bony architectural parameters to resolution motivates the need for high resolution scanning or post-processing of images.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".