Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective The purpose of this study morphological parameters of the three dimensional microstructure for mandibular trabecular bone which were measured with Micro CT. Methods A total of 10 patients with mandibular condyle specimen were divided into two types of trabecular bones, condyle and mandibular body. Ten volume of interests were created in each group and the total of twenty were measured. The mean value and standard deviation of each parameter in each reconstruction pixel size were calculated. Repeated ANOVA test was used to determine whether significant differences in the values from each parameter existed among the regions(P 0.05) and the following results were drawn. Results The bone volume andbone volume fraction values from the mandibular body group when compared to 18μm pixel groupwere significant at all reconstruction pixel size.In condyle group, all pixel sizes greater than 36 um were significant(P 0.05), but no differences were noted from pixel size at 36μm(P 0.05). The trabecular thickness and trabecular number from both condyle and mandibular body group were significant at all reconstruction pixel sizes(P 0.05). Conclusion Several parameters of Micro CT have shown that it is effective aproach for evaluation without intrinsic structure damage.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".