MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3199708972 · doi:10.1155/2021/4998786

Automatic Quantification of Atherosclerosis in Contrast-Enhanced MicroCT Scans of Mouse Aortas Ex Vivo

2021· article· en· W3199708972 on OpenAlexaff
Vincent A. Stadelmann, Gabrielle Boyd, Martin Guillot, Jean-Guy Bienvenu, Charles Glaus, Aurore Varela

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Biomedical Imaging · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced X-ray and CT Imaging
Canadian institutionsCanadian Nuclear Laboratories
FundersAmgen
KeywordsEx vivoContrast (vision)MedicineIn vivoComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective. While microCT evaluation of atherosclerotic lesions in mice has been formally validated, existing image processing methods remain undisclosed. We aimed to develop and validate a reproducible image processing workflow based on phosphotungstic acid-enhanced microCT scans for the volumetric quantification of atherosclerotic lesions in entire mouse aortas. Approach and Results. 42 WT and 42 apolipoprotein E knockout mouse aortas were scanned. The walls, lumen, and plaque objects were segmented using dual-threshold algorithms. Aortic and plaque volumes were computed by voxel counting and lesion surface by triangulation. The results were validated against manual and histological evaluations. Knockout mice had a significant increase in plaque volume compared to wild types with a plaque to aorta volume ratio of 0.3%, 2.8%, and 9.8% at weeks 13, 18, and 26, respectively. Automatic segmentation correlated with manual ( r 2 ≥ 0.89 ; p < .001 ) and histological evaluations ( r 2 > 0.96 ; p < .001 ). Conclusions. The semiautomatic workflow enabled rapid quantification of atherosclerotic plaques in mice with minimal manual work.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.254 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Biomedical ImagingSame topicAdvanced X-ray and CT ImagingFrench-language works237,207