MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2520326365 · doi:10.1186/s12891-016-1238-x

In vivo precision of three HR-pQCT-derived finite element models of the distal radius and tibia in postmenopausal women

2016· article· en· W2520326365 on OpenAlexafffund
Chantal E. Kawalilak, Saija Kontulainen, Morteza Amini, Joel L. Lanovaz, Wojciech P. Olszynski, James D. Johnston

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Musculoskeletal Disorders · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and osteoporosis research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchSaskatchewan Health Research FoundationUniversity of Saskatchewan
KeywordsQuantitative computed tomographyTibiaRADIUSMedicineNuclear medicineBiomedical engineeringBone mineralMaterials scienceMathematicsOsteoporosisAnatomyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The distal radius is the most common osteoporotic fracture site occurring in postmenopausal women. Finite element (FE) modeling is a non-invasive mathematical technique that can estimate bone strength using inputted geometry/micro-architecture and tissue material properties from computed tomographic images. Our first objective was to define and compare in vivo precision errors for three high-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography (HR-pQCT, XtremeCT; Scanco) based FE models of the distal radius and tibia in postmenopausal women. Our second objective was to assess the role of scan interval, scan quality, and common region on precision errors of outcomes for each FE model. METHODS: Models included: single-tissue model (STM), cortical-trabecular dual-tissue model (DTM), and one scaled model using imaged bone mineral density (E-BMD). Using HR-pQCT, we scanned the distal radius and tibia of 34 postmenopausal women (74 ± 7 years), at two time points. Primary outcomes included: tissue stiffness, apparent modulus, average von Mises stress, and failure load. Precision errors (root-mean-squared coefficient of variation, CV%RMS) were calculated. Multivariate ANOVA was used to compare the mean of individual CV% among the 3 HR-pQCT-based FE models. Spearman correlations were used to characterize the associations between precision errors of all FE model outcomes and scan/time interval, scan quality, and common region. Significance was accepted at P < 0.05. RESULTS: At the distal radius, CV%RMS precision errors were <9 % (Range STM: 2.8-5.3 %; DTM: 2.9-5.4 %; E-BMD: 4.4-8.7 %). At the distal tibia, CV%RMS precision errors were <6 % (Range STM: 2.7-4.8 %; DTM: 2.9-3.8 %; E-BMD: 1.8-2.5 %). At the radius, Spearman correlations indicated associations between the common region and associated precision errors of the E-BMD-derived apparent modulus (ρ = -0.392; P < 0.001) and von Mises stress (ρ = -0.297; P = 0.007). CONCLUSION: Results suggest that the STM and DTM are more precise for modeling apparent modulus, average von Mises stress, and failure load at the distal radius. Precision errors were comparable for all three models at the distal tibia. Results indicate that the noted differences in precision error at the distal radius were associated with the common scan region, illustrating the importance of participant repositioning within the cast and reference line placement in the scout view during the scanning process.

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 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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.239
Threshold uncertainty score0.411

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations24
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Musculoskeletal DisordersSame topicBone health and osteoporosis researchFrench-language works237,207