Unifying and disseminating musculoskeletal imaging software
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This is the narrative of the proposal submitted to the CZI call Advancing Imaging Through Collaborative Projects. We are looking for feedbacks for improvement and suggestions for next submissions. In this project, we wanted to accomplish the following two aims, focused on building capacity, and training and education: Aim 1: To increase interoperability of MSK open source software by creating a certification system. We will create certification guidelines and infrastructure to homogenize code style, structure, and documentation for existing and new MSK open source software. Aim 2: To accelerate dissemination and adoption of certified software within the MSK imaging community. We will recruit and engage MSK imaging scientists through social media, an improved website, and events. We will also create educational material and train MSK developers at in-person workshops. For information and feedbacks, please email to serena.bonaretti.research@gmail.com
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 | 0.056 | 0.128 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.019 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.022 |
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".