MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403414252 · doi:10.1055/s-0044-1788623

Two Decades of High-Resolution Peripheral Quantitative Computed Tomography: Present and Future Clinical Perspectives

2024· review· en· W4403414252 on OpenAlexaff
Steven K. Boyd

Bibliographic record

VenueSeminars in Musculoskeletal Radiology · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and osteoporosis research
Canadian institutionsAlberta Bone and Joint Health InstituteUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuantitative computed tomographyMedicineContext (archaeology)OsteoporosisDensitometryPeripheralComputed tomographyHigh resolutionRadiologyMedical physicsBone densityInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Twenty years have passed since the introduction of high-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography (HR-pQCT) to assess human bone microarchitecture. During that time, the technique has emerged as an important research tool used by clinicians and scientists to learn about the pathophysiology of bone adaptation in the context of osteoporosis and many other bone-affected conditions. Its rich three-dimensional data is well suited for precise longitudinal monitoring of bone microarchitecture and associated patient-specific estimated bone strength.However, uptake of HR-pQCT as a clinical diagnostic tool has been limited, in part due to challenges such as availability, regulatory approvals, and demonstrated cost effectiveness. New research suggests fracture risk assessment using HR-pQCT is comparable with current standards based on traditional bone densitometry, but its contribution to clinical care is best suited to two areas: (1) leveraging microarchitectural information to assist in treatment decisions for the large subset of patients who lie in the so-called gray zone by current fracture risk assessment, and (2) longitudinal monitoring that establishes highly refined trajectories of bone adaptation and can inform decisions to initiate treatment, monitor treatment effects, and inform cessation.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.942
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.444
Teacher spread0.402 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSeminars in Musculoskeletal RadiologySame topicBone health and osteoporosis researchFrench-language works237,207