Can ultrasound be used to estimate bone mineral density in children with growth problems?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To assess predictability of bone mineral density (BMD) of the lumbar spine (LS) determined by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) using by ultrasound speed of sound of the right and left radii (SOS-R and SOS-L) in patients with growth problems. METHODS: Ultrasound and DXA were compared in patients with advanced, normal and delayed bone ages assessed by Greulich and Pyle (GP) and Tanner and Whitehouse (TW3) methods. RESULTS: There was a strong correlation (r), of raw scores, between SOS-R and SOS-L, r = 0.81, p = 0.000 and their respective Z-scores, r = 0.78, p = 0.000. Z-score correlations were poor between SOS-R or SOS-L and LS-BMD. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of SOS-R and Z-scores for predicting normal (>-1 to <1) and low (<-1) LS-BMD were poor. For high (>1) LS-BMD, Z-scores were 22%, 93%, 29% and 90%, respectively, for SOS-R and for SOS-L, 25%, 89%, 20% and 91%. For very low (<-2) LS-BMD, SOS-R and SOS-L were the same, respectively, 29%, 91%, 40% and 86%. CONCLUSION: Ultrasound of the radius is a poor predictor of radiologically assessed BMD at the LS, especially with delayed bone age.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".