The third dimension in palaeopathology: How can three‐dimensional imaging by computed tomography bring an added value to retrospective diagnosis?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Three‐dimensional (3D) imaging is now extensively used for studying ancient human and animal bones. This method has been consensually adopted by palaeoanthropologists, but its interest in palaeopathology has been challenged. The aim of this paper is to illustrate the contribution of 3D reconstructions to retrospective diagnosis in palaeopathology. We selected six palaeopathological cases among our research corpus representing three nosographic categories (trauma, infection and neoplasia) from various periods ranging from the Middle Palaeolithic to the beginning of the Modern Era. For each case, we compared the diagnostic value of plain X‐ray, computed tomography (CT) slices, and 3D reconstructions. The latter were performed using TIVMI program, a free software for research use developed by one of us. Reconstructions are obtained by surface extraction that follows a segmentation process. We showed that this 3D method allowed reconstructing/quantifying pathological processes on ancient bones, usefully supplementing conventional radiological analyses and clearly bringing an added value to retrospective diagnosis in palaeopathology.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it