MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7018355797

Development of image-based beam model for assessment of osteoporotic hip fracture risk

2017· dissertation· en· W7018355797 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueMspace (University of Manitoba) · 2017
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and osteoporosis research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOsteoporosisFemurHip fractureStiffnessBone mineralEquivalence (formal languages)Beam (structure)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hip fracture has been identified as a major worldwide health problem among the elderly population. A fast, accurate and effective evaluation of hip fracture risk is essential for accurate health care planning and selecting a proper treatment. Therefore, the high applicability and the universal availability are required for assessing a technique. The objective of this study was to develop a two-dimensional subject-specific beam model, which is easy to be adopted into a clinical environment to assess hip fracture risk. First, the equivalence between CTXA (computed tomography X-ray absorptiometry) and QCT (quantitative computed tomography) derived femur cross-section stiffness was studied. Then, the CTXA-based femur cross-section stiffness was used in the beam model to calculate the hip fracture risk index (FRI) during sideways fall and single-leg stance loading configuration. Finally, the test of discrimination between PPI (proton-pump inhibitor) users and non-PPI users based on cross-sectional stiffness, BMD (bone mineral density) and FRI was conducted to demonstrate if PPI use is associated with the presence of osteoporosis or accelerated BMD loss. Strong correlation is found between CTXA and QCT derived femur cross-section stiffness, which indicates that QCT can be replaced by CTXA in assessing femur bone quality. Therefore, DXA can be a replacement of QCT to calculate femur cross-sectional properties due to the equivalence between CTXA and DXA derived mechanical properties. It is also demonstrated that the cross-sectional stiffness, BMD, and FRI cannot discriminate the PPI users from non-PPI users, which means that there is no difference between PPI users and non-PPI users in cross-sectional stiffness, BMD, and FRI. This may suggested that PPI use is not associated with the presence of osteoporosis or accelerated BMD loss. The proposed beam model can be easily adopted into clinic to predict hip fracture risk, and this beam model derived FRI can be used in some clinical verification. Yet its accuracy of discriminate fracture will be investigated in a future study.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.285 · 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMspace (University of Manitoba)→Same topicBone health and osteoporosis research→French-language works237,207→