MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2526162231

Effect of Voxel Size on Finite-Element Analysis of Micro-CT Derived Bone Sample

2012· article· en· W2526162231 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Kunj Upadhyaya

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of undergraduate research in Alberta · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and osteoporosis research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVoxelvon Mises yield criterionCadaveric spasmFinite element methodIsotropyMaterials scienceCompression (physics)ScannerCortical boneBiomedical engineeringMathematicsNuclear medicineMedicinePhysicsAnatomyOpticsComposite materialRadiology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Bone strength is dependent on the structural parameters of thetrabecular micro-architecture1. A method to estimate bone strength is finite element(FE) analysis of the bone micro-architecture2. Quantification of structural parameters3and FE analysis results are dependent on the image resolution2. This study used microcomputedtomography (micro-CT) to investigate how voxel size affects the accuracy oftrabecular bone measurements, particularly regarding how it relates to FE modelingprediction of bone strength.Methods: Cadaveric bovine cubic bones were imaged at an isotropic voxel sizeof 20mm using a micro-CT scanner (Micro-CT35). Images were segmented using athreshold based technique and re-scaled to voxel sizes 2-4 times larger (40mm-80mm)than the original images. Three-dimensional analyses of trabecular bone propertieswere quantified within the images of the bone cubes. Image voxels were converted tohexahedral elements for FE analysis. Uniaxial 1% compression test was performed onall data (FAIM 5.4). Nodes on the bottom surface were fixed while the top surface wassubjected to compression. No constraints were applied to the x and y directions.Results: Trabecular number (TbN) measurements increased linearly with increasingresolution. There was a 22.11% difference between trabecular number values at20mm versus 80mm. All other structural parameters were not statistically significantbetween different image resolutions (p > 0.05). For FE analysis, there was a 3.05%percent difference for mean von-Mises Stress at 20mm versus 80mm. Total reactionforce between 20mm and 80mm differed by 0.484%. Maximum von-Mises stress wasstatistically significantly different between 20mm and 80mm.Conclusion: All structural parameters except TbN measured at 20mm are comparableto 80mm. Similarly, bone strength estimates through FE analysis at 20mm arecomparable to 80mm. It is unlikely that TbN influenced the bone strength estimates.These results will allow for non-invasive estimate of bone strength with advancedclinical CT scanners.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.596
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.360 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of undergraduate research in AlbertaSame topicBone health and osteoporosis researchFrench-language works237,207