Ovarian imaging in the mouse using ultrasound biomicroscopy (UBM): a validation study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The mouse is a well accepted model for studies of human reproduction despite little being known about follicle dynamics in this species. Longitudinal studies of mouse folliculogenesis have been hampered by the lack of an appropriate imaging tool. Ultrasound biomicroscopy (UBM) may overcome this obstacle as it confers near-microscopic resolution through the use of high-frequency ultrasound waves. The objective of the present study was to determine whether UBM could be used to count and measure ovarian follicles and corpora lutea (CL) reliably in mice. Ovaries of 25 adult CD-1 mice were imaged using a 55-MHz transducer and then excised and processed for histology. Follicles and CL were counted and measured from digitally stored UBM cine-loops and photographed histological sections. Differences between techniques were assessed by Bland-Altman agreement analyses. Follicle counts yielded by the two techniques varied by only +/-1 follicle when follicles ranged between 300 and 499 microm. Perfect agreement among counts was evident when follicles were >500 microm. The total number of CL was accurately estimated using UBM; however, the number of 350-699 microm CL was underestimated and the number of CL>or=700 microm was overestimated. In conclusion, UBM can be used reliably to count and measure follicles in mice.
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it