Micro‐CT versus synchrotron radiation phase contrast imaging of human cochlea
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
High-resolution images of the cochlea are used to develop atlases to extract anatomical features from low-resolution clinical computed tomography (CT) images. We compare visualization and contrast of conventional absorption-based micro-CT to synchrotron radiation phase contrast imaging (SR-PCI) images of whole unstained, nondecalcified human cochleae. Three cadaveric cochleae were imaged using SR-PCI and micro-CT. Images were visually compared and contrast-to-noise ratios (CNRs) were computed from n = 27 regions-of-interest (enclosing soft tissue) for quantitative comparisons. Three-dimensional (3D) models of cochlear internal structures were constructed from SR-PCI images using a semiautomatic segmentation method. SR-PCI images provided superior visualization of soft tissue microstructures over conventional micro-CT images. CNR improved from 7.5 ± 2.5 in micro-CT images to 18.0 ± 4.3 in SR-PCI images (p < 0.0001). The semiautomatic segmentations yielded accurate reconstructions of 3D models of the intracochlear anatomy. The improved visualization, contrast and modelling achieved using SR-PCI images are very promising for developing atlas-based segmentation methods for postoperative evaluation of cochlear implant surgery.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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