Evaluation of patient tissue selection methods for deriving equivalent density calibration for femoral bone quantitative CT analyses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Osteoporosis affects an increasing number of people every year and patient specific finite element analysis of the femur has been proposed to identify patients that could benefit from preventative treatment. The aim of this study was to demonstrate, verify, and validate an objective process for selecting tissues for use as the basis of phantomless calibration to enable patient specific finite element analysis derived hip fracture risk prediction. Retrospective reanalysis of patient computed tomography (CT) scans has the potential to yield insights into more accurate prediction of osteoporotic fracture. Bone mineral density (BMD) specific calibration scans are not typically captured during routine clinical practice. Tissue-based BMD calibration can therefore empower the retrospective study of patient CT scans captured during routine clinical practice. Together the method for selecting tissues as the basis for phantomless calibration coupled with the post-processing steps for deriving a calibration equation using the selected tissues provide an estimation of quantitative equivalent density results derived using calibration phantoms. Patient tissues from a retrospective cohort of 211 patients were evaluated. The best phantomless calibration resulted in a femoral strength (FS) [N] bias of 0.069 ± 0.07% over FS derived from inline calibration and a BMD [kg/cm3] bias of 0.038 ± 0.037% over BMD derived from inline calibration. The phantomless calibration slope for the best method presented was within the range of patient specific calibration curves available for comparison and demonstrated a small bias of 0.028 ± 0.054 HU/(mg/cm3), assuming the Mindways Model 3 BMD inline calibration phantom as the gold standard. The presented method of estimating a calibration equation from tissues showed promise for CT-based femoral fracture analyses of retrospective cohorts without readily available calibration data.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".