Multi-site phantomless bone mineral density from clinical quantitative computed tomography in males

Author:

Haverfield Zachary A1ORCID,Agnew Amanda M1,Loftis Kathryn2,Zhang Jun3,Hayden Lauren E1,Hunter Randee L1

Affiliation:

1. Injury Biomechanics Research Center, The Ohio State University , Columbus, Ohio 43210, United States

2. United States Army Futures Command DEVCOM Analysis Center , Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, 21005, United States

3. Medical Physics, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center , Columbus, Ohio 43210, United States

Abstract

Abstract Volumetric bone mineral density (vBMD) is commonly assessed using QCT. Although standard vBMD calculation methods require phantom rods that may not be available, internal-reference phantomless (IPL) and direct measurements of Hounsfield units (HU) can be used to calculate vBMD in their absence. Yet, neither approach has been systemically assessed across skeletal sites, and HU need further validation as a vBMD proxy. This study evaluated the accuracy of phantomless methods, including IPL and regression-based phantomless (RPL) calibration using HU to calculate vBMD, compared to phantom-based (PB) methods. vBMD from QCT scans of 100 male post-mortem human subjects (PMHS) was calculated using site-specific PB calibration at multiple skeletal sites throughout the body. A development sample of 50/100 PMHS was used to determine site-specific reference material density for IPL calibration and RPL equations. Reference densities and equations from the development sample were used to calculate IPL and RPL vBMD on the remaining 50/100 PMHS for method validation. PB and IPL/RPL vBMD were not significantly different (p > .05). Univariate regressions between PB and IPL/RPL vBMD were universally significant (p < 0.05), except for IPL Rad-30 (p = 0.078), with a percent difference across all sites of 6.97% ± 5.95% and 5.22% ± 4.59% between PB and IPL/RPL vBMD, respectively. As vBMD increased, there were weaker relationships and larger differences between PB vBMD and IPL/RPL vBMD. IPL and RPL vBMD had strong relationships with PB vBMD across sites (R2 = 97.99, R2 = 99.17%, respectively), but larger residual differences were found for IPL vBMD. As the accuracy of IPL/RPL vBMD varied between sites, phantomless methods should be site-specific to provide values more comparable to PB vBMD. Overall, this study suggests that RPL calibration may better represent PB vBMD compared to IPL calibration, increases the utility of opportunistic QCT, and provides insight into bone quality and fracture risk.

Funder

United States Army Futures Command DEVCOM Analysis Center

Publisher

Oxford University Press (OUP)

Reference48 articles.

1. The global burden of surgical management of osteoporotic fractures;Tarrant;World J Surg,2020

2. Economic burden of osteoporosis in the world: a systematic review;Rashki Kemmak;Med J Islam Repub Iran,2020

3. Refracture and mortality following hospitalization for severe osteoporotic fractures: the Fractos study;Roux;JBMR Plus,2021

4. Characteristics of recurrent fractures;Kanis;Osteoporos Int,2018

5. Healthcare policy changes in osteoporosis can improve outcomes and reduce costs in the United States;Lewiecki;JBMR Plus,2019

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3