MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2122193753 · doi:10.1177/0037549713516691

Hybrid simulation of brain–skull growth

2013· article· en· W2122193753 on OpenAlexaff
Jing Jin, Sahar Shahbazi, John E. Lloyd, Sidney Fels, Sandrine de Ribaupierre, Roy Eagleson

Bibliographic record

VenueSIMULATION · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCraniofacial Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCraniosynostosisSkullCraniosynostosesAnatomyComputer scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes a hybrid model that includes both a standard finite element model and also volume-preserving structural modeling for a clinical application involving skull development in infants, with particular application to craniostosis modeling. To accommodate the growing brain, the skull needs to grow quickly in the first few months of life, and most of the growth of the skull at that time occurs at the sutures. Craniosynostosis, which is a developmental abnormality, occurs when one or more sutures are fused early in life (even in utero) while the skull is growing, resulting in an abnormal skull shape. To study normal brain–skull growth and to develop a model of craniosynostosis, we have developed a hybrid computational model to simulate the relationship between the growing deformable brain and the rigid skull. Our model is composed of the nine segmented skull plates as rigid surfaces, deformable sutures, and a volumetrically controllable deformable brain. The Cranial Index (ratio of biparietal width to fronto-occipital length) is measured during the simulation, showing a characteristic peak during development. Measures of linear growth along each dimension show characteristic increases over time. The hybrid simulation framework shows promise to support further investigations into abnormal skull development. By varying the properties of the sutures in our model, we can now simulate different craniosynostosis models, such as scaphocephaly and trigonocephaly. In this paper, we show results on the evolution of the Cranial Index as calculated using standard landmarks and compare to the normal index, and thereby evaluate our model by comparing it with patient data.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.252 · 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
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

Citations15
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSIMULATIONSame topicCraniofacial Disorders and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207