Recommendations for High-resolution Peripheral Quantitative Computed Tomography Assessment of Bone Density, Microarchitecture, and Strength in Pediatric Populations
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
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The purpose of this review is to summarize current approaches and provide recommendations for imaging bone in pediatric populations using high-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography (HR-pQCT). RECENT FINDINGS: Imaging the growing skeleton is challenging and HR-pQCT protocols are not standardized across centers. Adopting a single-imaging protocol for all studies is unrealistic; thus, we present three established protocols for HR-pQCT imaging in children and adolescents and share advantages and disadvantages of each. Limiting protocol variation will enhance the uniformity of results and increase our ability to compare study results between different research groups. We outline special cases along with tips and tricks for acquiring and processing scans to minimize motion artifacts and account for growing bone. The recommendations in this review are intended to help researchers perform HR-pQCT imaging in pediatric populations and extend our collective knowledge of bone structure, architecture, and strength during the growing years.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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