MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2125916196 · doi:10.1093/ps/85.9.1648

Use of Apparent Transverse Quantitative Ultrasonography to Assess Skeletal Integrity in Layers

2006· article· en· W2125916196 on OpenAlexaff
M.A. Martínez-Cummer, Mark Hurtig, S. Leeson

Bibliographic record

VenuePoultry Science · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicBird parasitology and diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUltrasonographyQuantitative assessmentMedicineSkeleton (computer programming)OsteoporosisUltrasoundAge groupsAnatomyNuclear medicineBiologySurgeryRadiologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although there are several techniques currently available to assess skeletal integrity in live birds, few offer important features for application in a commercial setting, offering ease of use and moderate cost. Quantitative ultrasonography (QUS) is an established technique for diagnosis of osteoporosis in humans and horses that has potential application for layers. An OmniSense 700S quantitative ultrasonometer was evaluated for use with Single Comb White Leghorn hens. Humeral QUS values (m/s) were measured in a series of experiments using a total of 144 Shaver White hens. Significant correlations (P < 0.01) were observed among sequential QUS measurements taken on the same bird at 54, 60, and 66 wk of age. At the completion of the studies (66 wk of age), the left and right humeri were excised, cleaned, and rescanned. Postmortem QUS data from left and right humeri were related (R2 = 0.72, P < 0.0001), although future studies may need to consider both sides of the skeleton to account for asymmetry conditions. Ultrasound data collected from live hens at 66 wk of age correlated well with postmortem QUS data (R2 = 0.80, P < 0.0001). Quantitative ultrasonography did not correlate with humeral bone-breaking force measured postmortem. Bones from live hens, surrounded by tissue thicker than 4 mm, could not be read by the QUS probe.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.249
Threshold uncertainty score0.427

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePoultry ScienceSame topicBird parasitology and diseasesFrench-language works237,207