MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416829631 · doi:10.22540/jmni-25-371

Assessment of Local Pelvic Bone Volumetric Density and Cortical Thickness Using Multi-Energy Bi-Planar Radiography

2025· article· en· W4416829631 on OpenAlexafffund
Ningxin Qiao, Isabelle Villemure, Carolina Solórzano Barrera, Carl‐Éric Aubin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Musculoskeletal and Neuronal Interactions · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced X-ray and CT Imaging
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique MontréalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsRadiographyConventional radiographyBone densityCortical boneImplantComputed tomography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: This study presents a method to determine the volumetric density of pelvic bone and cortical bone thickness along critical regions of the S2 alar-iliac (S2AI) screw trajectory using bi-planar multi-energy X-ray (BMEX).Methods: Simulated BMEXs were generated from CT data from eight patients, with coordinate matching linking pixels to voxel density values.This dataset included pixel attenuation values, coordinates as independent variables, and voxel attenuation values (Hounsfield Units, HU) as the dependent variable for training a random forest regressor model.Results: The trained model revealed adequate trabecular bone density prediction (root mean square error: 32.8 mg/cm 3 ) and cortical thickness accuracy (error 1.2 mm).Trabecular bone showed a minor tendency for density overestimation with a maximum difference of 83 HU, while cortical bone exhibited an underestimation of up to 118 HU.Conclusions: The improved prediction of bone density and the capability to estimate cortical bone thickness signify a significant advancement towards a comprehensive modality for predicting bone quality in implant placement planning.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.696
Threshold uncertainty score0.490

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.278 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Musculoskeletal and Neuronal InteractionsSame topicAdvanced X-ray and CT ImagingFrench-language works237,207