MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2233935301 · doi:10.1016/j.dib.2015.12.054

Data of low-dose phase-based X-ray imaging for in situ soft tissue engineering assessments

2016· article· en· W2233935301 on OpenAlexafffund
Zohreh Izadifar, Ali Honaramooz, Sheldon Wiebe, George Belev, Daniel Chen, Dean Chapman

Bibliographic record

VenueData in Brief · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced X-ray Imaging Techniques
Canadian institutionsCanadian Light Source (Canada)Royal University HospitalUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersWestern Economic Diversification CanadaSaskatchewan Health Research FoundationCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of SaskatchewanCanadian Light Source
KeywordsIn situBiomedical engineeringPhase-contrast imagingMaterials scienceSoft tissueSynchrotron radiationTomographyNuclear medicineMedicineRadiologyOpticsPhase contrast microscopyChemistryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article presents the data of using three phase-based X-ray imaging techniques to characterize biomaterial scaffold and soft tissues in situ, as reported in our study "Low-dose phase-based X-ray imaging techniques for in situ soft tissue engineering assessments" [1]. The examined parameters include the radiation dose, scan time, and image quality, which are all critical to longitudinal in situ live animal assessments. The data presented were obtained from three dimensional imaging of scaffolds in situ cartilage by means of synchrotron-based computed tomography-diffraction enhanced imaging (CT-DEI), analyzer based imaging (CT-ABI), and in-line phase contrast imaging (CT-PCI) at standard and low dose imaging modalities.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.337 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueData in BriefSame topicAdvanced X-ray Imaging TechniquesFrench-language works237,207