Literature DB >> 21185418

Estimation of bone mineral density in children from diagnostic CT images: a comparison of methods with and without an internal calibration standard.

Alexander H Habashy1, Xiaowei Yan, J Keenan Brown, Xiaoping Xiong, Sue C Kaste.   

Abstract

We investigated the feasibility and potential limitations of estimating bone mineral density (BMD) from standard diagnostic computed tomography (dCT). We analyzed three sets of BMD measurements for L1 and L2, each performed by a novice and an expert, for intra- and interobserver variance (n=43 studies from 38 patients; median age, 13.2 years) using one BMD quantification system with (conventional quantitative computed tomography (QCT)) and two without (QCT and dCT) an external calibration phantom. Using ANOVA model, means of three sets of BMD measurements analyzed by the expert differed by 2.5mg/cm(2); for the novice, by less than 1mg/cm(2). Variation of measurement differences was less for the expert. Mean intra- and interobserver absolute standardized differences (ASD) were 1.77% and 1.8%, respectively. The mean ASD between phantom and phantom-less methods of QCT studies were 3.3%; mean ASD of phantom QCT versus phantom-less dCT was 14.3%. Regression modeling suggested compensation for sources of dCT BMD measurement bias can reduce the mean ASD of phantom QCT versus phantom-less dCT to 6.5%. Thus, phantom-less QCT of dCT adds clinically useful BMD information not typically attained from dCT, thereby augmenting patient care and presenting important possibilities for research without need for additional study.
Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 21185418      PMCID: PMC4780050          DOI: 10.1016/j.bone.2010.12.012

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Bone        ISSN: 1873-2763            Impact factor:   4.398


  6 in total

Review 1.  Quality and performance measures in bone densitometry: part 1: errors and diagnosis.

Authors:  K Engelke; C-C Glüer
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2006-07-04       Impact factor: 4.507

Review 2.  Quantitative computed tomography.

Authors:  Judith E Adams
Journal:  Eur J Radiol       Date:  2009-08-13       Impact factor: 3.528

3.  Mild versus definite osteoporosis: comparison of bone densitometry techniques using different statistical models.

Authors:  A F Heuck; J Block; C C Glueer; P Steiger; H K Genant
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  1989-12       Impact factor: 6.741

4.  Phantom-less QCT BMD system as screening tool for osteoporosis without additional radiation.

Authors:  Dirk K Mueller; Alex Kutscherenko; Hans Bartel; Alain Vlassenbroek; Petr Ourednicek; Joachim Erckenbrecht
Journal:  Eur J Radiol       Date:  2010-03-12       Impact factor: 3.528

5.  Volumetric quantitative CT of the spine and hip derived from contrast-enhanced MDCT: conversion factors.

Authors:  Jan S Bauer; Tobias D Henning; Dirk Müeller; Ying Lu; Sharmila Majumdar; Thomas M Link
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2007-05       Impact factor: 3.959

6.  Precise measurement of vertebral mineral content using computed tomography.

Authors:  C E Cann; H K Genant
Journal:  J Comput Assist Tomogr       Date:  1980-08       Impact factor: 1.826

  6 in total
  13 in total

1.  Imaging-Based Methods for Non-invasive Assessment of Bone Properties Influenced by Mechanical Loading.

Authors:  Norma J Macintyre; Amanda L Lorbergs
Journal:  Physiother Can       Date:  2012-04-05       Impact factor: 1.037

2.  Assessment of osteoporosis using pelvic diagnostic computed tomography.

Authors:  Yee-Suk Kim; Seunghun Lee; Yoon-Kyoung Sung; Bong-Gun Lee
Journal:  J Bone Miner Metab       Date:  2015-06-09       Impact factor: 2.626

Review 3.  Opportunistic Screening for Osteoporosis Using Computed Tomography: State of the Art and Argument for Paradigm Shift.

Authors:  Leon Lenchik; Ashley A Weaver; Robert J Ward; John M Boone; Robert D Boutin
Journal:  Curr Rheumatol Rep       Date:  2018-10-13       Impact factor: 4.592

4.  Rachitic changes, demineralization, and fracture risk in healthy infants and toddlers with vitamin D deficiency.

Authors:  Jeannette M Perez-Rossello; Henry A Feldman; Paul K Kleinman; Susan A Connolly; Rick A Fair; Regina M Myers; Catherine M Gordon
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2011-11-21       Impact factor: 11.105

5.  One Novel Phantom-Less Quantitative Computed Tomography System for Auto-Diagnosis of Osteoporosis Utilizes Low-Dose Chest Computed Tomography Obtained for COVID-19 Screening.

Authors:  Tang Xiongfeng; Zhang Cheng; He Meng; Ma Chi; Guo Deming; Qi Huan; Chen Bo; Yang Kedi; Shen Xianyue; Wong Tak-Man; Lu William Weijia; Qin Yanguo
Journal:  Front Bioeng Biotechnol       Date:  2022-06-28

Review 6.  Fracture Prediction by Computed Tomography and Finite Element Analysis: Current and Future Perspectives.

Authors:  Fjola Johannesdottir; Brett Allaire; Mary L Bouxsein
Journal:  Curr Osteoporos Rep       Date:  2018-08       Impact factor: 5.096

7.  Bone Mineral Density Estimations From Routine Multidetector Computed Tomography: A Comparative Study of Contrast and Calibration Effects.

Authors:  Johannes Kaesmacher; Hans Liebl; Thomas Baum; Jan Stefan Kirschke
Journal:  J Comput Assist Tomogr       Date:  2017 Mar/Apr       Impact factor: 1.826

8.  Patient-Specific Phantomless Estimation of Bone Mineral Density and Its Effects on Finite Element Analysis Results: A Feasibility Study.

Authors:  Young Han Lee; Jung Jin Kim; In Gwun Jang
Journal:  Comput Math Methods Med       Date:  2019-01-03       Impact factor: 2.238

9.  Calibration with or without phantom for fracture risk prediction in cancer patients with femoral bone metastases using CT-based finite element models.

Authors:  Florieke Eggermont; Nico Verdonschot; Yvette van der Linden; Esther Tanck
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-07-30       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 10.  Quantitative computed tomography and opportunistic bone density screening by dual use of computed tomography scans.

Authors:  Alan D Brett; J Keenan Brown
Journal:  J Orthop Translat       Date:  2015-09-15       Impact factor: 5.191

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.