THE RELIABILITY OF A NEW COMPUTERIZED TECHNIQUE FOR MEASURING EPIPHYSEAL PLATE ZONAL HEIGHT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to assess the reliability of a new computerized technique for measuring epiphyseal plate zonal height. A fully crossed two factor generalizability experiment in which the effect of observers and time on the reliability of measurements of zonal height within different regions (center and periphery) of the epiphyseal plate was examined. Photomicrographs from both the central and peripheral regions of each of the 30 canine distal ulna epiphyseal plate histological sections were considered; within each region, the proliferative and hypertrophic zones were outlined and, after calibration of the computer program, the zonal height was computed. Irrespective of whether the measures were taken from photomicrographs of the central or the peripheral region of the epiphyseal plate, results indicated higher generalizability coefficients for hypertrophic zone measurements than for those of the proliferative zone in seven of the eight intra-observer and inter-observer calculations. In addition, higher generalizability coefficients were achieved for intra-observer than for inter-observer measurement situations. It was concluded that this is a reliable technique if the sample is measured by one observer and the average of three repeated measurements is used for each specimen.
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 | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".