Development of a customized three-dimensional airway model
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
This study aimed to develop a customized, three-dimensional airway model based on relevant medical images, using additive manufacturing techniques. We evaluated the model’s ability to replicate the dimensions of the images acquired from the chest of a patient using multi-detector computed tomography (CT). Using dedicated software, a three-dimensional mesh was created based on the images. A multi-detector CT study of the full-scale printed three-dimensional airways model was subsequently carried out to compare its dimensions with that of the original study at four predetermined points. The observed median differences at the four points were 0.4 mm (p = 0.686), -1.3 mm (p = 0.138), 0.7 mm (p = 0.141), and 0.1 mm (p = 0.892). The intraclass correlation coefficient between the measurements made on the patient and those on the model was 0.98 (95% confidence interval: 0.96–0.99, p < 0.001). We successfully developed a three-dimensional model of the airway based on its corresponding medical images. The differences in the dimensions between the model and the original images were in line with those observed in previous studies and are presumably irrelevant for most applications.
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it