MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

CT-based internal density calibration for opportunistic skeletal assessment using abdominal CT scans

2020· article· en· W3006178739 on OpenAlexafffund
Andrew S. Michalski, Bryce A. Besler, Geoffrey J. Michalak, Steven K. Boyd

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Engineering & Physics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and osteoporosis research
Canadian institutionsAlberta Bone and Joint Health InstituteUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsImaging phantomCalibrationBone densityQuantitative computed tomographyReproducibilityBone mineralMedicineNuclear medicineCadaverVoxelOsteoporosisBiomedical engineeringRadiologySurgeryMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CT-based opportunistic skeletal assessment complements current osteoporosis diagnosis. Quantitative assessment by internal density calibration overcomes the limitations of phantom-based calibration. We sought to establish and validate an internal calibration technique using abdominal CT scans and establish reproducibility precision for three density calibration techniques. Ten full-body cadavers were CT scanned at the spine and pelvis with a calibration phantom. Internal calibration was performed using in-scan tissue references and deriving a voxel-specific calibration. Bone mineral density (BMD) and finite element (FE) failure load assessed skeletal health. Three independent users measured intra-exam precision by manual tissue selection. To verify results, ten subjects were imaged using an abdominal imaging protocol. Internal calibration performed equivalently to gold-standard phantom-based calibration in the cadaver spine and hip. Internal calibration BMD precision in the spine was 7 mg/cc (4.9%) and FE precision was 163 N (7.2%), whereas phantom-based precision was 3 mg/cc (1.8%) and 77 N (3.8%). Internal calibration hip BMD and FE precision was 11 mg/cc (5.3%) and 84 N (6.0%), whereas phantom-based precision was 2 mg/cc (1.3%) and 30 N (3.4%). Using the abdominal imaging protocol, internal calibration performed comparably to phantom-based calibration. Internal calibration provides BMD and FE outcome precision within 7.2% for opportunistic skeletal health assessment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.050
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.300 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations54
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical Engineering & PhysicsSame topicBone health and osteoporosis researchFrench-language works237,207