MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2898573969 · doi:10.1002/ar.23933

The Influence of Body Size and Bone Mass on Cortical Bone Histomorphometry in Human Ribs

2018· article· en· W2898573969 on OpenAlexafffund
Amy C. Beresheim, Susan Pfeiffer, Amanda Alblas

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Anatomical Record · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicForensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersUniversiteit StellenboschUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsOsteonFemurCortical boneRib cageAnatomyBiologyPopulationBone massMedicinePathologyOsteoporosisSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

male = 131, mean age-at-death = 47.96 ± 15.71 years) from the Kirsten Skeletal Collection, Stellenbosch University, South Africa. Maximum femur length and femur maximum head diameter are used as proxies for height and weight; total cross-sectional area, endosteal area, and cortical area are used to derive measures of bone mass. Histomorphometric variables include osteon population density (OPD) and osteon area (On.Ar). Partial correlations, controlling for age, test for significant relationships among variables. A hierarchical regression model is used to determine unique variable contributions to On.Ar and OPD. Body size measurements do not correlate with either bone mass or histomorphometric variables, suggesting that size-standardization may not be necessary in studies of rib bone microstructure. Age is the most significant factor affecting OPD, while OPD is the best predictor of On.Ar. These findings suggest that age-related secondary osteon crowding affects osteon geometry. Understanding the biological mechanisms that direct bone remodeling and determine microstructural variation is essential for interpreting histological data. Anat Rec, 301:1788-1796, 2018. © 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.649
Threshold uncertainty score0.967

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.036
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations7
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Anatomical RecordSame topicForensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology StudiesFrench-language works237,207