Literature DB >> 24692132

Fracture risk predictions based on statistical shape and density modeling of the proximal femur.

Todd L Bredbenner1, Robert L Mason, Lorena M Havill, Eric S Orwoll, Daniel P Nicolella.   

Abstract

Increased risk of skeletal fractures due to bone mass loss is a major public health problem resulting in significant morbidity and mortality, particularly in the case of hip fractures. Current clinical methods based on two-dimensional measures of bone mineral density (areal BMD or aBMD) are often unable to identify individuals at risk of fracture. We investigated predictions of fracture risk based on statistical shape and density modeling (SSDM) methods using a case-cohort sample of individuals from the Osteoporotic Fractures in Men (MrOS) study. Baseline quantitative computed tomography (QCT) data of the right femur were obtained for 513 individuals, including 45 who fractured a hip during follow-up (mean 6.9 year observation, validated by physician review). QCT data were processed for 450 individuals (including 40 fracture cases) to develop individual models describing three-dimensional bone geometry and density distribution. Comparison of mean fracture and non-case models indicated complex structural differences that appear to be responsible for resistance to hip fracture. Logistic regressions were used to model the relation of baseline hip BMD and SSDM weighting factors to the occurrence of hip fracture. Area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) for a prediction model based on weighting factors and adjusted by age was significantly greater than AUC for a prediction model based on aBMD and age (0.94 versus 0.83, respectively). The SSDM-based prediction model adjusted by age correctly identified 55% of the fracture cases (and 94.7% of the non-cases), whereas the clinical standard aBMD correctly identified 10% of the fracture cases (and 91.3% of the non-cases). SSDM identifies subtle changes in combinations of structural bone traits (eg, geometric and BMD distribution traits) that appear to indicate fracture risk. Investigation of important structural differences in the proximal femur between fracture and no-fracture cases may lead to improved prediction of those at risk for future hip fracture.
© 2014 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

Entities:  

Keywords:  BIOMECHANICS; BONE QCT; DXA; FRACTURE RISK ASSESSMENT; OSTEOPOROSIS

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24692132      PMCID: PMC4357175          DOI: 10.1002/jbmr.2241

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Bone Miner Res        ISSN: 0884-0431            Impact factor:   6.741


  34 in total

1.  Osteoporosis management by geriatricians in the UK.

Authors:  Karthik Kayan; John Kanis; Eugene McCloskey
Journal:  Age Ageing       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 10.668

2.  Automated 3-D PDM construction from segmented images using deformable models.

Authors:  Michael R Kaus; Vladimir Pekar; Christian Lorenz; Roel Truyen; Steven Lobregt; Jürgen Weese
Journal:  IEEE Trans Med Imaging       Date:  2003-08       Impact factor: 10.048

3.  Computationally efficient confidence intervals for cross-validated area under the ROC curve estimates.

Authors:  Erin LeDell; Maya Petersen; Mark van der Laan
Journal:  Electron J Stat       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 1.125

4.  Development of a parametric finite element model of the proximal femur using statistical shape and density modelling.

Authors:  Daniel P Nicolella; Todd L Bredbenner
Journal:  Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin       Date:  2011-06-01       Impact factor: 1.763

5.  Design and baseline characteristics of the osteoporotic fractures in men (MrOS) study--a large observational study of the determinants of fracture in older men.

Authors:  Eric Orwoll; Janet Babich Blank; Elizabeth Barrett-Connor; Jane Cauley; Steven Cummings; Kristine Ensrud; Cora Lewis; Peggy M Cawthon; Robert Marcus; Lynn M Marshall; Joan McGowan; Kathy Phipps; Sherry Sherman; Marcia L Stefanick; Katie Stone
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 2.226

6.  Incidence and economic burden of osteoporosis-related fractures in the United States, 2005-2025.

Authors:  Russel Burge; Bess Dawson-Hughes; Daniel H Solomon; John B Wong; Alison King; Anna Tosteson
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 6.741

7.  Assessment of the strength of proximal femur in vitro: relationship to femoral bone mineral density and femoral geometry.

Authors:  X G Cheng; G Lowet; S Boonen; P H Nicholson; P Brys; J Nijs; J Dequeker
Journal:  Bone       Date:  1997-03       Impact factor: 4.398

8.  Prediction of hip fracture can be significantly improved by a single biomedical indicator.

Authors:  Debora Testi; Marco Viceconti; Angelo Cappello; Saverio Gnudi
Journal:  Ann Biomed Eng       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 3.934

Review 9.  Diagnosis of osteoporosis and assessment of fracture risk.

Authors:  John A Kanis
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2002-06-01       Impact factor: 79.321

10.  The effect of hip fracture on mortality, hospitalization, and functional status: a prospective study.

Authors:  F D Wolinsky; J F Fitzgerald; T E Stump
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1997-03       Impact factor: 9.308

View more
  15 in total

1.  Automatic multi-parametric quantification of the proximal femur with quantitative computed tomography.

Authors:  Julio Carballido-Gamio; Serena Bonaretti; Isra Saeed; Roy Harnish; Robert Recker; Andrew J Burghardt; Joyce H Keyak; Tamara Harris; Sundeep Khosla; Thomas F Lang
Journal:  Quant Imaging Med Surg       Date:  2015-08

Review 2.  Clinical Evaluation of Bone Strength and Fracture Risk.

Authors:  Chantal M J de Bakker; Wei-Ju Tseng; Yihan Li; Hongbo Zhao; X Sherry Liu
Journal:  Curr Osteoporos Rep       Date:  2017-02       Impact factor: 5.096

3.  Predictors of bone fractures in a single-centre cohort of hemodialysis patients: a 2-year follow-up study.

Authors:  Ludmila Brunerová; Renata Lažanská; Petr Kasalický; Jana Verešová; Jana Potočková; Alena Fialová; Ivan Rychlík
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2018-08-16       Impact factor: 2.370

4.  Hip Fracture Discrimination Based on Statistical Multi-parametric Modeling (SMPM).

Authors:  Julio Carballido-Gamio; Aihong Yu; Ling Wang; Yongbin Su; Andrew J Burghardt; Thomas F Lang; Xiaoguang Cheng
Journal:  Ann Biomed Eng       Date:  2019-05-31       Impact factor: 3.934

Review 5.  The use of bone mineral density measured by dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) and peripheral quantitative computed microtomography in chronic kidney disease.

Authors:  Martin Jannot; Fabrice Mac-Way; Vanessa Lapierre; Marie-Helene Lafage-Proust
Journal:  J Nephrol       Date:  2017-09-12       Impact factor: 3.902

6.  Sex differences in the spatial distribution of bone in relation to incident hip fracture: Findings from the AGES-Reykjavik study.

Authors:  Elisa A Marques; Julio Carballido-Gamio; Vilmundur Gudnason; Gunnar Sigurdsson; Sigurdur Sigurdsson; Thor Aspelund; Kristin Siggeirsdottir; Lenore Launer; Gudny Eiriksdottir; Thomas Lang; Tamara B Harris
Journal:  Bone       Date:  2018-05-16       Impact factor: 4.398

Review 7.  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

8.  Advanced 2D image processing technique to predict hip fracture risk in an older population based on single DXA scans.

Authors:  F Jazinizadeh; J D Adachi; C E Quenneville
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2020-05-15       Impact factor: 4.507

9.  Quantification of Alterations in Cortical Bone Geometry Using Site Specificity Software in Mouse models of Aging and the Responses to Ovariectomy and Altered Loading.

Authors:  Gabriel L Galea; Sion Hannuna; Lee B Meakin; Peter J Delisser; Lance E Lanyon; Joanna S Price
Journal:  Front Endocrinol (Lausanne)       Date:  2015-04-23       Impact factor: 5.555

10.  Statistical shape modelling of hip and lumbar spine morphology and their relationship in the MRC National Survey of Health and Development.

Authors:  Anastasia V Pavlova; Fiona R Saunders; Stella G Muthuri; Jennifer S Gregory; Rebecca J Barr; Kathryn R Martin; Rebecca J Hardy; Rachel Cooper; Judith E Adams; Diana Kuh; Richard M Aspden
Journal:  J Anat       Date:  2017-05-31       Impact factor: 2.610

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.