Quantifying Subresolution 3D Morphology of Bone with Clinical Computed Tomography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The aim of this study was to quantify sub-resolution trabecular bone morphometrics, which are also related to osteoarthritis (OA), from clinical resolution cone beam computed tomography (CBCT). Samples ( n = 53) were harvested from human tibiae ( N = 4) and femora ( N = 7). Grey-level co-occurrence matrix (GLCM) texture and histogram-based parameters were calculated from CBCT imaged trabecular bone data, and compared with the morphometric parameters quantified from micro-computed tomography. As a reference for OA severity, histological sections were subjected to OARSI histopathological grading. GLCM and histogram parameters were correlated to bone morphometrics and OARSI individually. Furthermore, a statistical model of combined GLCM/histogram parameters was generated to estimate the bone morphometrics. Several individual histogram and GLCM parameters had strong associations with various bone morphometrics (| r | > 0.7). The most prominent correlation was observed between the histogram mean and bone volume fraction ( r = 0.907). The statistical model combining GLCM and histogram-parameters resulted in even better association with bone volume fraction determined from CBCT data (adjusted R 2 change = 0.047). Histopathology showed mainly moderate associations with bone morphometrics (| r | > 0.4). In conclusion, we demonstrated that GLCM- and histogram-based parameters from CBCT imaged trabecular bone ( ex vivo ) are associated with sub-resolution morphometrics. Our results suggest that sub-resolution morphometrics can be estimated from clinical CBCT images, associations becoming even stronger when combining histogram and GLCM-based parameters.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".