MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

High-Resolution Computed Tomography of Temporal Bone

2006· article· en· W4300877976 on OpenAlexaff
Rosser Powitzky, L. Anne Hayman, Jason Chau, Soenke H. Bartling, Rajiv Gupta, Vershalee Shukla

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Computer Assisted Tomography · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEar Surgery and Otitis Media
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineComputed tomographyTemporal boneTomographyResolution (logic)Nuclear medicineHigh-resolution computed tomographyRadiologyAnatomyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this 4-part series is to illustrate the nuances of temporal bone anatomy using a high-resolution (200 μ isotropic) prototype volume computed tomography (CT) scanner. The normal anatomy in axial and coronal sections is depicted in the first and second parts. In this, the fourth part, and the third part, the structures that are removed and/or altered in 9 different surgical procedures are color coded and inscribed in the same coronal (article IV) and axial (article III) sections. The text stresses clinically important imaging features, including the normal postoperative appearance, and common complications after these operations. The superior resolution of the volume CT images is vital to the comprehensive and accurate representation of these operations. Minuscule intricate structures that are currently only localized in the mind's eye because of the resolution limit of conventional CT are clearly seen on these scans. This enhanced visualization, together with the information presented in the text, should assist in interpreting temporal bone scans, communicating with surgeons, and teaching this complex anatomy.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations5
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Computer Assisted TomographySame topicEar Surgery and Otitis MediaFrench-language works237,207