MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2796213144 · doi:10.1515/msr-2018-0012

A Novel Marker Based Method to Teeth Alignment in MRI

2018· article· en· W2796213144 on OpenAlexaff
Jean-Marc Luukinen, Daniel Aalto, Jarmo Malinen, Naoko Niikuni, Jani Saunavaara, Päivi Jääsaari, Antti Ojalammi, Riitta Parkkola, Tero Soukka, Risto-Pekka Happonen

Bibliographic record

VenueMeasurement Science Review · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Radiography and Imaging
Canadian institutionsMisericordia Community HospitalUniversity of Alberta
FundersVarsinais-Suomen SairaanhoitopiiriMagnus Ehrnroothin Säätiö
KeywordsCalipersMagnetic resonance imagingOrthognathic surgeryMedicineNuclear medicineRadiologyDentistryOrthodonticsPhysicsOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can precisely capture the anatomy of the vocal tract. However, the crowns of teeth are not visible in standard MRI scans. In this study, a marker-based teeth alignment method is presented and evaluated. Ten patients undergoing orthognathic surgery were enrolled. Supraglottal airways were imaged preoperatively using structural MRI. MRI visible markers were developed, and they were attached to maxillary teeth and corresponding locations on the dental casts. Repeated measurements of intermarker distances in MRI and in a replica model was compared using linear regression analysis. Dental cast MRI and corresponding caliper measurements did not differ significantly. In contrast, the marker locations in vivo differed somewhat from the dental cast measurements likely due to marker placement inaccuracies. The markers were clearly visible in MRI and allowed for dental models to be aligned to head and neck MRI scans.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMeasurement Science ReviewSame topicDental Radiography and ImagingFrench-language works237,207