Comparison of Spatial Photogrammetry and Digital Radiology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Proper diagnosis is a basis in the treatment of scoliotic posture and scoliosis. The aim of the study was to compare Moiré's spatial photogrammetry and Exhibeon digital radiology in the assessment of the primary curvature of the spine. The study involved 28 girls aged 7-18 years with scoliotic posture and scoliosis. Body posture as well as the spine were examined using Moiré’s spatial photogrammetry and the Exhibeon digital radiography method. Multiple regression analysis showed a significant but low correlation between the angle of primary curvature determined by the Moiré method and one determined using the X-ray method. Screening analysis of variance showed significant relationships between the primary spinal curvature determined by X-ray with the age of the subjects. The Cobb angle increased with the age of subjects. There was no such relationship between the primary curvature angle of the spine determined by the Moiré method and the age of the subjects. The obtained results indicate a moderate convergence of the primary spinal curvature variables assessed using the Moiré spatial photogrammetry method and Exhibeon digital radiography. X-ray examination is considered to be more reliable and credible. The examination of body posture and spine using Moiré’s spatial photogrammetry should play a screening and complementary role.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".