MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4361011239 · doi:10.3390/diagnostics13071240

Evaluation of Trabecular Microstructure of Cancellous Bone Using Quarter-Detector Computed Tomography

2023· article· en· W4361011239 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hiroaki HASEGAWA, Nobuhito Nango, Masafumi Machida

Bibliographic record

VenueDiagnostics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and osteoporosis research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersJapan Society for the Promotion of ScienceNihon University
KeywordsCancellous boneComputed tomographyMicrostructureTomographyTrabecular boneMaterials scienceDetectorQuantitative computed tomographyQuarter (Canadian coin)MedicineBone densityRadiologyOpticsComposite materialPhysicsAnatomyOsteoporosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Quarter-detector computed tomography (QDCT) is an ultra-high-spatial-resolution imaging technique. This study aimed to verify the validity of trabecular structure evaluation using a QDCT scanner in the diagnosis of osteoporosis. We used a cancellous bone specimen image of the second lumbar vertebrae of an adult male with moderate osteoporosis. To obtain QDCT images, we created a three-dimensional model from micro-CT images of the specimen. Statistical analysis was performed on the relationship between micro-CT and QDCT imaging modalities. The differences between micro-CT and QDCT were assessed based on their significance with respect to the calculated mean measurements using the Mann-Whitney test. Single regression analysis was performed using linear regression, with micro-CT and QDCT as the explanatory and objective variables, respectively, to determine the relationship of the measured values between the two modalities. By applying the necessary correction to the micro-CT measured values, it is possible to perform an analysis equivalent to micro-CT, which offers higher spatial resolution than QDCT. We found evidence that if QDCT can be used, trabecular structure evaluation may contribute to image diagnosis to evaluate practical bone fragility.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.610
Threshold uncertainty score0.396

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.309 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiagnosticsSame topicBone health and osteoporosis researchFrench-language works237,207