Application-specific approaches to MicroCT for evaluation of mouse models of pulmonary disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The advent of micro-computed tomography (microCT) has provided significant advancement in our ability to generate clinically relevant assessments of lung health and disease in small animal models. As microCT use to generate outcomes analysis in pulmonary preclinical models has increased there have been substantial improvements in image quality and resolution, and data analysis software. However, there are limited published methods for standardized imaging and automated analysis available for investigators. Manual quantitative analysis of microCT images is complicated by the presence of inflammation and parenchymal disease. To improve the efficiency and limit user-associated bias, we have developed an automated pulmonary air and tissue segmentation (PATS) task list to segment lung air volume and lung tissue volume for quantitative analysis. We demonstrate the effective use of the PATS task list using four distinct methods for imaging, 1) in vivo respiration controlled scanning using a flexiVent, 2) longitudinal breath-gated in vivo scanning in resolving and non-resolving pulmonary disease initiated by lipopolysaccharide-, bleomycin-, and silica-exposure, 3) post-mortem imaging, and 4) ex vivo high-resolution scanning. The accuracy of the PATS task list was compared to manual segmentation. The use of these imaging techniques and automated quantification methodology across multiple models of lung injury and fibrosis demonstrates the broad applicability and adaptability of microCT to various lung diseases and small animal models and presents a significant advance in efficiency and standardization of preclinical microCT imaging and analysis for the field of pulmonary research.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".