MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Rapid in vivo whole body composition of rats using cone beam μCT

2010· article· en· W2122691717 on OpenAlexafffund
Patrick V. Granton, Chris J. D. Norley, Joseph Umoh, Eva A. Turley, Bruce C. Frier, Earl G. Noble, David W. Holdsworth

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Physiology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBody Composition Measurement Techniques
Canadian institutionsRobarts Clinical TrialsWestern University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsIn vivoCone beam ctComposition (language)ChemistryAnatomyBiomedical engineeringMedicineComputed tomographyBiologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Precise, noninvasive analysis and quantification of in vivo body composition is essential for research involving longitudinal, small-animal disease models. We investigated the feasibility and precision of a rapid, flat-panel μCT scanner to report whole body adipose tissue volume (ATV), lean tissue volume (LTV), skeletal tissue volume (STV), and bone mineral content (BMC) in 25 postmortem female and 52 live male Sprague-Dawley rats. μCT images, acquired in three 90-mm segments and reconstructed with 308 μm of isotropic voxel spacing, formed contiguous image volumes of each entire rat specimen. Three signal-intensity thresholds (determined to be -186, 5, and 155 HU) were used to classify each voxel as adipose, lean, or skeletal tissue, respectively. Tissue masses from the volume fractions of ATV, LTV, and STV were calculated from assumed tissue densities of 0.95, 1.05, and 1.92 g/cm(-3), respectively. A CT-derived total mass was calculated for each rat and compared with the gravimetrically measured mass, which differed on average for the postmortem female and the live male group by 2.5 and 1.1%, respectively. To evaluate the accuracy of the CT-derived body composition technique, following the live male study excised muscle tissue in the lower right leg of all rats in group B were compared with the image-derived LT measurement of the same regional compartment and found to differ on average by 2.2%. Through repeated CT measurements of postmortem specimens, the whole body ATV, LTV, STV, and BMC measurement analysis gave a precision value of ±0.6, 1.9, 1.7, and 0.5% of the average value, respectively.

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)0.000
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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.422

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.263 · 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

Citations27
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied PhysiologySame topicBody Composition Measurement TechniquesFrench-language works237,207