MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

3D reconstruction of the spine from biplanar X-rays using parametric models based on transversal and longitudinal inferences

2009· article· en· W2118902366 on OpenAlexaff
Ludovic Humbert, Jacques A. de Guise, B. Aubert, B. Godbout, Wafa Skalli

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Engineering & Physics · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicScoliosis diagnosis and treatment
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
FundersCentre National de la Recherche Scientifique
Keywords3D reconstructionTransversal (combinatorics)Position (finance)Iterative reconstructionComputer scienceReconstruction algorithmParametric statisticsOrientation (vector space)Artificial intelligenceComputer visionMathematicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reconstruction methods from biplanar X-rays provide 3D analysis of spinal deformities for patients in standing position with a low radiation dose. However, such methods require an important reconstruction time and there is a clinical need for fast and accurate techniques. This study proposes and evaluates a novel reconstruction method of the spine from biplanar X-rays. The approach uses parametric models based on longitudinal and transversal inferences. A first reconstruction level, dedicated to routine clinical use, allows to get a fast estimate (reconstruction time: 2 min 30 s) of the 3D reconstruction and accurate clinical measurements. The clinical measurements precision (evaluated on asymptomatic subjects, moderate and severe scolioses) was between 1.2 degrees and 5.6 degrees. For a more accurate 3D reconstruction (complex pathologies or research purposes), a second reconstruction level can be obtained within a reduced reconstruction time (10 min) with a fine adjustment of the 3D models. The mean shape accuracy in comparison with CT-scan was 1.0 mm. The 3D reconstruction method precision was 1.8mm for the vertebrae position and between 2.3 degrees and 3.9 degrees for the orientation. With a reduced reconstruction time, an improved accuracy and precision and a method proposing two reconstruction levels, this approach is efficient for both clinical routine uses and research purposes.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations370
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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