Reproducibility of optical coherence tomography airway imaging
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
Optical coherence tomography (OCT) is a promising imaging technique to evaluate small airway remodeling. However, the short-term insertion-reinsertion reproducibility of OCT for evaluating the same bronchial pathway has yet to be established. We evaluated 74 OCT data sets from 38 current or former smokers twice within a single imaging session. Although the overall insertion-reinsertion airway wall thickness (WT) measurement coefficient of variation (CV) was moderate at 12%, much of the variability between repeat imaging was attributed to the observer; CV for repeated measurements of the same airway (intra-observer CV) was 9%. Therefore, reproducibility may be improved by introduction of automated analysis approaches suggesting that OCT has potential to be an in-vivo method for evaluating airway remodeling in future longitudinal and intervention studies.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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