Interdependence of trabecular microarchitectural parameters from micro-computed tomography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Standard microarchitectural analysis of bone using micro-computed tomography produces a large number of parameters that quantify the structure of the trabecular network. Analyses that perform statistical tests on many parameters are at elevated risk of making Type I errors. However, when multiple testing correction procedures are applied, the risk of Type II errors is elevated if the parameters being tested are strongly correlated. In this article, we argue that four commonly used trabecular microarchitectural parameters (thickness, separation, number, and bone volume fraction) are interdependent and describe only two independent properties of the trabecular network. We first derive theoretical relationships between the parameters based on their geometric definitions. Then, we analyze these relationships with an aggregated in vivo dataset with 2987 images from 1434 participants and a synthetically generated dataset with 144 images using principal component analysis (PCA) and linear regression analysis. With PCA, when trabecular thickness, separation, number, and bone volume fraction are combined, we find that 92% to 97% of the total variance in the data is explained by the first two principal components. With linear regressions, we find high coefficients of determination (0.827 – 0.994) and fitted coefficients within expected ranges. These findings suggest that to maximize statistical power in future studies, only two of trabecular thickness, separation, number and bone volume fraction should be used for statistical testing.
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 | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".