Accuracy and repeatability of 3D Photogrammetry to digitally reconstruct bones
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Advances in computer hardware and software permit the reconstruction of physical objects digitally from digital camera images. Given the varying shapes and sizes of human bones, a comprehensive assessment is required to establish the accuracy of digital bone reconstructions from three-dimensional (3D) photogrammetry. Five human bones (femur, radius, scapula, vertebra, patella) were marked with pencil, to establish between 9 and 29 landmarks. The distances between landmarks were measured from the physical bones and digitized from 3D reconstructions. Images used for reconstructions were taken on two separate days, allowing for repeatability to be established. In comparison to physical measurements, the mean (±standard deviation) absolute differences were between 0.2±0.1mm and 0.4±0.2mm. The mean (±standard deviation) absolute differences between reconstructions were between 0.3±<0.1mm and 0.4±0.4mm. The 3D photogrammetry procedures described are accurate and repeatable, permitting quantitative analyses to be conducted from digital reconstructions. Moreover, 3D photogrammetry may be used to capture and preserve anatomical materials for anatomy education.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".