Literature DB >> 22782698

Measuring bone mineral density with fat-water MRI: comparison with computed tomography.

Kai-Yu Ho1, Houchun H Hu, Joyce H Keyak, Patrick M Colletti, Christopher M Powers.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To develop a method for measuring bone mineral density (BMD) with MRI, and to validate this method against quantitative computed tomography (QCT).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A mathematical relationship between signal intensities from proton-density-weighted in-phase images generated by multi-fat-peak T2*-IDEAL MRI and BMD was derived using a set of calibration standards constructed from various concentrations of hydroxyapatite in water. Using these standards, the relationship between hydroxyapatite concentration and MRI signal intensity was examined. A T2*-IDEAL protocol was performed on the patella of 5 volunteers and the signal model was used to compute BMD of all voxels of the patella. The BMD data were validated by obtaining QCT scans of the same patella, computing QCT BMD of all voxels, and comparing the MRI and QCT BMD data by performing linear regression analysis on a voxel-by-voxel basis.
RESULTS: A strong linear correlation between hydroxyapatite concentration of the calibration standards and MRI signal intensities was observed (r = 0.98; P < 0.01). In the patella, BMD measurements (N = 28796 voxels) from the MRI signal model were significantly correlated with those from QCT (r = 0.82; P < 0.001; slope = 1.02; and intercept = -0.26).
CONCLUSION: A standardized phantom consisting of hydroxyapatite and water can be used to accurately quantify BMD in vivo using MRI.
Copyright © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22782698     DOI: 10.1002/jmri.23749

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging        ISSN: 1053-1807            Impact factor:   4.813


  7 in total

1.  Technologies for assessment of bone reflecting bone strength and bone mineral density in elderly women: an update.

Authors:  Alvilde Dhainaut; Mari Hoff; Unni Syversen; Glenn Haugeberg
Journal:  Womens Health (Lond)       Date:  2016-02-22

Review 2.  Patient-Specific Bone Multiscale Modelling, Fracture Simulation and Risk Analysis-A Survey.

Authors:  Amadeus C S de Alcântara; Israel Assis; Daniel Prada; Konrad Mehle; Stefan Schwan; Lucia Costa-Paiva; Munir S Skaf; Luiz C Wrobel; Paulo Sollero
Journal:  Materials (Basel)       Date:  2019-12-24       Impact factor: 3.623

3.  Evaluation of dual energy quantitative CT for determining the spatial distributions of red marrow and bone for dosimetry in internal emitter radiation therapy.

Authors:  Mitchell M Goodsitt; Apeksha Shenoy; Jincheng Shen; David Howard; Matthew J Schipper; Scott Wilderman; Emmanuel Christodoulou; Se Young Chun; Yuni K Dewaraja
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2014-05       Impact factor: 4.071

4.  Cervical vertebral trabecular bone mineral density in Great Danes with and without osseous-associated cervical spondylomyelopathy.

Authors:  J Armstrong; R C da Costa; P Martin-Vaquero
Journal:  J Vet Intern Med       Date:  2014-10-13       Impact factor: 3.333

Review 5.  A comparison of peripheral imaging technologies for bone and muscle quantification: a technical review of image acquisition.

Authors:  A K Wong
Journal:  J Musculoskelet Neuronal Interact       Date:  2016-12-14       Impact factor: 2.041

6.  Noninvasive quantification of in vitro osteoblastic differentiation in 3D engineered tissue constructs using spectral ultrasound imaging.

Authors:  Madhu Sudhan Reddy Gudur; Rameshwar R Rao; Alexis W Peterson; David J Caldwell; Jan P Stegemann; Cheri X Deng
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-01-22       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Percentage fat fraction in magnetic resonance imaging: upgrading the osteoporosis-detecting parameter.

Authors:  Rong Chang; Xiaowen Ma; Yonghong Jiang; Dageng Huang; Xiujin Chen; Ming Zhang; Dingjun Hao
Journal:  BMC Med Imaging       Date:  2020-03-17       Impact factor: 1.930

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.