MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Image-based finite element model stiffness and vBMD by single and dual energy CT reconstruction kernel

2024· article· en· W4404292114 on OpenAlexafffund
Nikolas K. Knowles, Sarah Quayyum, Jonathan Ying, Chloe Stiles, Daniel Beshay

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biomechanics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced X-ray and CT Imaging
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaArthritis Society
KeywordsKernel (algebra)Finite element methodDual energyDual (grammatical number)StiffnessElement (criminal law)Computer scienceStructural engineeringPhysicsMathematicsMedicineEngineeringInternal medicinePure mathematicsArtPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Single-energy quantitative computed tomography (SEQCT) provides volumetric bone mineral density (vBMD) measures for bone analysis and input to image-based finite element models (FEMs). Dual-energy CT (DECT) improves vBMD by accounting for voxel-specific material variations utilizing scans at multiple x-ray energies. vBMD is also altered by reconstruction kernel that cannot be accounted for using calibration phantoms. This study compared vBMD and FEM stiffness derived from SEQCT and DECT images reconstructed with two common kernels. SEQCT and DECT images of cadaveric shoulders (n = 10) were collected using standard (STD) and boneplus (BONE) kernels. Hounsfield Units were converted to vBMD using specimen-specific calibrations. DECT STD and BONE images were generated using an established material decomposition method with 40 and 90 keV simulated monochromatic images. A proximal humerus bone section below the anatomic neck was used for vBMD analysis and FEM generation. FEMs were loaded to 1% apparent strain for stiffness measurements. Between STD and BONE kernel images, average vBMD differed 0.9 mg K2HPO4 /cc and 4.1 mg K2HPO4 /cc, in SEQCT and DECT images, respectively. Significant differences occurred in DECT images (p = 0.001). BONE reconstructed images produced higher vBMD measures across both SEQCT and DECT images. The difference between STD and BONE in both SEQCT- and DECT-based FEMs persisted, with larger estimated stiffness in BONE models. For six of the models DECT-based had higher stiffness than SEQCT-based models using the same kernel, although these models differed between STD and BONE kernels. Differences in stiffness between STD and BONE derived models were similar across image types (DECT: 17.5 kN/mm; SEQCT: 19.0 kN/mm). Stiffness values were significantly different within SECT kernels and between SEQCT BONE and DECT STD models. This study shows important differences in vBMD and FEM stiffness that occur due to CT-based imaging parameters alone. These results indicate that consistent imaging parameters should be used for vBMD analysis and FEM input to avoid systematic measurement errors.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of BiomechanicsSame topicAdvanced X-ray and CT ImagingFrench-language works237,207