MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2109795867 · doi:10.1152/jappl.2001.90.4.1314

Evaluation of laser-Doppler perfusion imaging for measurement of blood flow in cortical bone

2001· article· en· W2109795867 on OpenAlexaff
Roxane C. Shymkiw, Ronald F. Zernicke, Kevin Forrester, Robert C. Bray

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Physiology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOptical Imaging and Spectroscopy Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerfusionLaser Doppler velocimetryBlood flowRepeatabilityBiomedical engineeringCortical boneMedicineNuclear medicineChemistryAnatomyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Most techniques currently available to measure blood flow in bone are time consuming and require destruction of the tissue, but laser-Doppler technology offers a less invasive method. This study assessed the utility of laser-Doppler perfusion imaging (LDI) to measure perfusion in cortical bone. Twelve mature New Zealand White rabbits were assigned to one of three groups: normal control, constriction (norepinephrine), or dilatation (nitroprusside). The left and right medial tibiae were consecutively scanned at red (634-nm) and near-infrared (810-nm) wavelengths to examine the repeatability of LDI output. The pharmacological intervention groups were injected with the respective drug, and LDI measurements at 810 nm were obtained concurrently with colored microsphere-determined flow in all of the groups. LDI effectively quantified blood flow in cortical bone and detected physiologically induced changes in perfusion. A significant positive correlation was found between microsphere-determined flow and LDI output (r = 0.6, P < 0.05). Repeatability of consecutive LDI measurements was within 5%. The effectiveness of LDI to measure perfusion in bone suggests this method has potential for investigating the role of blood flow in bone metabolism and remodeling.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.068
Threshold uncertainty score0.265

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.299 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations16
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied PhysiologySame topicOptical Imaging and Spectroscopy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207