MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4360600075 · doi:10.1186/s41205-023-00171-1

Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) 3D Printing Special Interest Group (SIG) clinical situations for which 3D printing is considered an appropriate representation or extension of data contained in a medical imaging examination: breast conditions

2023· article· en· W4360600075 on OpenAlex
Elsa Arribas, Tatiana Kelil, Lumarie Santiago, Arafat Ali, Seetharam Chadalavada, Leonid Chepelev, Anish Ghodadra, Ciprian N. Ionita, Joonhyuk Lee, Prashanth Ravi, Justin Ryan, Adnan Sheikh, Frank J. Rybicki, David H. Ballard

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venue3D Printing in Medicine · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAnatomy and Medical Technology
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of OttawaUniversity of Toronto
FundersRadiological Society of North America
KeywordsRadiological weaponMedicineBreast cancerMedical physicsBreast imaging3D printingMammographyRadiologyCancerInternal medicineEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of medical 3D printing has expanded dramatically for breast diseases. A writing group composed of the Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) Special Interest Group on 3D Printing (SIG) provides updated appropriateness criteria for breast 3D printing in various clinical scenarios. Evidence-based appropriateness criteria are provided for the following clinical scenarios: benign breast lesions and high-risk breast lesions, breast cancer, breast reconstruction, and breast radiation (treatment planning and radiation delivery).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.830
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.117
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.277 · 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