MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Fast 3D reconstruction of the spine from biplanar radiographs using a deformable articulated model

2011· article· en· W2147926774 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel C. Moura, Jonathan Boisvert, Jorge G. Barbosa, Hubert Labelle, João Manuel R. S. Tavares

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Engineering & Physics · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicScoliosis diagnosis and treatment
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-JustinePolytechnique MontréalNational Research Council Canada
FundersFundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia
KeywordsRadiographyScoliosisOrientation (vector space)Cobb angleOrthodonticsWilcoxon signed-rank testComputer scienceArtificial intelligence3D reconstructionMedicineRotation (mathematics)MathematicsComputer visionRadiologySurgeryGeometryStatisticsMann–Whitney U test

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper proposes a novel method for fast 3D reconstructions of the scoliotic spine from two planar radiographs. The method uses a statistical model of the shape of the spine for computing the 3D reconstruction that best matches the user input (about 7 control points per radiograph). In addition, the spine was modelled as an articulated structure to take advantage of the dependencies between adjacent vertebrae in terms of location, orientation and shape. The accuracy of the method was assessed for a total of 30 patients with mild to severe scoliosis (Cobb angle [22°, 70°]) by comparison with a previous validated method. Reconstruction time was 90 s for mild patients, and 110 s for severe. Results show an accuracy of ∼0.5mm locating vertebrae, while orientation accuracy was up to 1.5° for all except axial rotation (3.3° on moderate and 4.4° on severe cases). Clinical indices presented no significant differences to the reference method (Wilcoxon test, p ≤ 0.05) on patients with moderate scoliosis. Significant differences were found for two of the five indices (p=0.03) on the severe cases, while errors remain within the inter-observer variability of the reference method. Comparison with state-of-the-art methods shows that the method proposed here generally achieves superior accuracy while requiring less reconstruction time, making it especially appealing for clinical routine use.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations53
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical Engineering & PhysicsSame topicScoliosis diagnosis and treatmentFrench-language works237,207