MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2145330597 · doi:10.4995/wrs.1998.349

IN VIVO MEASUREMENT OF BODY PARTS AND FAT DEPOSITION IN RABBITS BY MRI.

2010· article· en· W2145330597 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Rabbit Science · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRabbits: Nutrition, Reproduction, Health
Canadian institutionsRoyal Ottawa Mental Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMagnetic resonance imagingIn vivoAdipose capsule of kidneyTomographyVolume (thermodynamics)Nuclear medicineBody weightComputed tomographyMedicineAnatomyChemistryRadiologyBiologyKidneyInternal medicinePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An experiment using Magnetic Resonance lmaging (MRI) tomography were done involving 87 rabbits of four genotypes, 12 or 16 weeks old. MRI was applied on the day before slaughter. The slices were taken in three orthogonal planes. The resulting pictures indicate that MRI provides very detailed slices. The volume of the fat deposit around the kidneys, the total body fat volume of the body and the muscle of the hind part was collected from the MRI pictures. Correlation coefficients were computed between the volume of the perirenal fat and its weight, the muscle volume of the hind part and its weight, the total body fat volume and the crude fat content. The correlation values were found to be very high (0.77 to 0.94) in the group of age 16 proving that the MRI tomograph is a excellent In vivo method to determine the volumes of fat and muscle. The lower correlation values in the group of age 12 (0.39 to 0.76) indicate that the MRI tomography is sensitive to the digital sampling errors.

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 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)0.002
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 score0.340
Threshold uncertainty score0.971

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.224 · 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