Three-dimensional periodontal investigations using a prototype handheld ultrasound scanner with spatial positioning reading sensor
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
AIM: To demonstrate the feasibility of the 3D ultrasound periodontal tissue reconstruction of the lateral area of a porcine mandible using standard 2D ultrasound equipment and spatial positioning reading sensors. MATERIAL AND METHOD: Periodontal 3D reconstructions were performed using a free-hand prototype based on a 2D US scanner and a spatial positioning reading sensor. For automated data processing, deep learning algorithms were implemented and trained using semi-automatically seg-mented images by highly specialized imaging professionals. RESULTS: US probe movement analysis showed that non-parallel 2D frames were acquired during the scanning procedure. Comparing 3 different 3D periodontal reconstructions of the same porcine mandible, the accuracy ranged between 0.179 mm and 0.235 mm. CONCLUSION: The present study demonstrated the diagnostic potential of 3D reconstruction using a free-hand 2D US scanner with spatial positioning readings. The use of auto-mated data processing with deep learning algorithms makes the process practical in the clinical environment for assessment of periodontal soft tissues.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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