MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2805032431 · doi:10.1111/1556-4029.13815

Bone Area Histomorphometry

2018· article· en· W2805032431 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Janna M. Andronowski, Christian M. Crowder

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Forensic Sciences · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAutopsy Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCortical boneCancellous boneAnatomyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Quantifying the amount of cortical bone loss is one variable used in histological methods of adult age estimation. Measurements of cortical area tend to be subjective and additional information regarding bone loss is not captured considering cancellous bone is disregarded. We describe whether measuring bone area (cancellous + cortical area) rather than cortical area may improve histological age estimation for the sixth rib. Mid-shaft rib cross-sections (n = 114) with a skewed sex distribution were analyzed. Ages range from 16 to 87 years. Variables included: total cross-sectional area, cortical area, bone area, relative bone area, relative cortical area, and endosteal area. Males have larger mean total cross-sectional area, bone area, and cortical area than females. Females display a larger mean endosteal area and greater mean relative measure values. Relative bone area significantly correlates with age. The relative bone area variable will provide researchers with a less subjective and more accurate measure than cortical area.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.370
Threshold uncertainty score0.457

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 studies0.0000.001
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.284 · 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

Citations6
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Forensic SciencesSame topicAutopsy Techniques and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207