Accuracy assessment of 3D bone reconstructions using CT: an intro comparison
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
Computed tomography provides high contrast imaging of the joint anatomy and is used routinely to reconstruct 3D models of the osseous and cartilage geometry (CT arthrography) for use in the design of orthopedic implants, for computer assisted surgeries and computational dynamic and structural analysis. The objective of this study was to assess the accuracy of bone and cartilage surface model reconstructions by comparing reconstructed geometries with bone digitizations obtained using an optical tracking system. Bone surface digitizations obtained in this study determined the ground truth measure for the underlying geometry. We evaluated the use of a commercially available reconstruction technique using clinical CT scanning protocols using the elbow joint as an example of a surface with complex geometry. To assess the accuracies of the reconstructed models (8 fresh frozen cadaveric specimens) against the ground truth bony digitization-as defined by this study-proximity mapping was used to calculate residual error. The overall mean error was less than 0.4 mm in the cortical region and 0.3 mm in the subchondral region of the bone. Similarly creating 3D cartilage surface models from CT scans using air contrast had a mean error of less than 0.3 mm. Results from this study indicate that clinical CT scanning protocols and commonly used and commercially available reconstruction algorithms can create models which accurately represent the true geometry.
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 | 0.000 | 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