MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2995517363 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0225663

HR-pQCT imaging in children, adolescents and young adults: Systematic review and subgroup meta-analysis of normative data

2019· review· en· W2995517363 on OpenAlexaffabout
Daddy Mata‐Mbemba, Taryn J. Rohringer, Ala Ibrahim, Thomasin Adams-Webberc, Rahim Moineddin, Andréa S. Doria, Reza Vali

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Imaging and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationUniversity of TorontoHospital for Sick ChildrenIzaak Walton Killam Health CentreDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuantitative computed tomographyMeta-analysisMedicineSubgroup analysisComputed tomographyBone densityNuclear medicineMEDLINEInternal medicineRadiologyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We aimed to investigate the methodologies on image acquisition of normative data of high-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography (HR-pQCT) in children, adolescents and/or young adults (up to 25 years) and to determine their normative data based on available literature. A literature search was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE and Web of Science from 1947 to July 2019. Quality of articles was assessed using Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) scoring system and Modified Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS). Articles which fitted the following criteria were combined to meta-analysis: age range (15 to 22.6 years), references at tibia (22.5mm) and/or radius (9.0 to 9.5mm). Eight articles were ultimately included in the systematic review and 4 of them that filled the criteria were summarised in meta-analysis. The results of random effects model of HR-pQCT parameters of the 4 articles were as follows: 1)Radius: bone volume fraction (BT/BV) [estimate 0.17:0.1229(lower)-0.2115 (upper); trabecular number (Tb_N):2.08(2.03-2.12); trabecular thickness (Tb.Th):0.07 (0.07-0.0.08); trabecular separation (Tb.Sp):0.41 (0.38-0.42); cortical thickness (Ct.Th):0.85 (0.76-0.94); cortical porosity (Ct.Po):1.53 (0.63-2.44); total area (Tt.Ar):263.66(-385.3-912.6); total bone density (Tt-vBMD):280.5 (73.1-487.7); Trabecular density (Tb-vBMD):223.6 (47.1-400.09), and cortical density (CT.vBMD):765.9 (389.1-1142.8). 2)Tibia: BT/BV:0.18 (0.17-0.19); Tb_N:2.02 (1.83-2.2); Tb.Th:0.08 (0.80-0.09); Tb.Sp:0.40(0.36-0.44); Ct.Th:1.32(1.26-1.38); Ct.Po:3.15 (1.1-5.2); Tt.Ar:693.1(150.2-1235.8); Tt-vBMD:343.76 (335.5-352.1); Tb-vBMD:223.6 (213.37 (193.5-233.2), and CT.vBMD:894.3 (857.6-931.1). There is overall 'fair' evidence on reporting of results of normative data of HR-pQCT parameters in children, adolescents and/or young adults. However, data are scarce pointing out to the urgent need for standardization of acquisition parameters and guidelines on the use of HR-PQCT in these populations.

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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.485
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.113
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations15
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicCardiac Imaging and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207