Establishing error bounds for internal calibration of quantitative computed tomography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Opportunistic computed tomography (CT) scans, which can assess relevant osteoporotic bones of interest, offer a potential solution for identifying osteoporotic individuals. CT scans usually do not contain calibration phantoms, so internal calibration methods have been developed to create a voxel-specific density calibration that can be used in opportunistic CT. It remains a challenge, however, to account for potential sources of error in internal calibration, such as beam hardening or heterogeneous internal reference tissues. The purpose of this work was to introduce our internal calibration method that accounts for these variations and to estimate error bounds for the bone mineral density (BMD) measurements taken from internally calibrated scans. The error bounds are derived by incorporating a combination of a Monte Carlo simulation and standard error propagation into our previously established internal calibration method. A cohort of 138 clinical abdominal CT scans were calibrated for BMD assessment with a phantom placed in the field of view and used as the ground truth. Our modified internal calibration method provided error bounds on the same images and was tested to contain the ground truth phantom-calibrated BMD. This was repeated using 10 different internal reference tissue combinations to explore how error bounds are affected by the choice of internal tissue referents. We found that the tissue combination of air, skeletal muscle, and cortical bone yielded the most accurate BMD estimates while maintaining error bounds that were sufficiently conservative to account for sources of error such as beam hardening and heterogeneous tissue samples. The mean difference between the phantom BMD and the BMD resulting from the tissue combination of air, skeletal muscle and cortical bone was 2.12 mg/cc (0.06% BMD error) and 1.13 mg/cc (0.02 % BMD error) for the left and right femur, respectively. Providing error bounds for internal calibration provides a method to explore the influence of internal reference tissues and confidence for BMD estimates.
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 | 0.036 | 0.148 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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".