Using additive manufacturing in accuracy evaluation of reconstructions from computed tomography
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
Bone models derived from patient imaging and fabricated using additive manufacturing technology have many potential uses including surgical planning, training, and research. This study evaluated the accuracy of bone surface reconstruction of two diarthrodial joints, the hip and shoulder, from computed tomography. Image segmentation of the tomographic series was used to develop a three-dimensional virtual model, which was fabricated using fused deposition modelling. Laser scanning was used to compare cadaver bones, printed models, and intermediate segmentations. The overall bone reconstruction process had a reproducibility of 0.3 ± 0.4 mm. Production of the model had an accuracy of 0.1 ± 0.1 mm, while the segmentation had an accuracy of 0.3 ± 0.4 mm, indicating that segmentation accuracy was the key factor in reconstruction. Generally, the shape of the articular surfaces was reproduced accurately, with poorer accuracy near the periphery of the articular surfaces, particularly in regions with periosteum covering and where osteophytes were apparent.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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