Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2024
Semi-automatic proximal humeral trabecular bone density assessment tool: technique application and clinical validation.
СтатьяВалидационное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Guo De-Ming, Weng Yuan-Zhi, Yu Ze-Hao, Li Shi-Huai, Qu Wen-Rui, Liu Xiao-Ning, Qi Huan, Ma Chi, Tang Xiong-Feng, Li Rui-Yan, Han Qinghe, Xu Hao, Lu Weijia William, Qin Yan-Guo
Аннотация
PURPOSE: This study aimed to apply a newly developed semi-automatic phantom-less QCT (PL-QCT) to measure proximal humerus trabecular bone density based on chest CT and verify its accuracy and precision.
METHODS: Subcutaneous fat of the shoulder joint and trapezius muscle were used as calibration references for PL-QCT BMD measurement. A self-developed algorithm based on a convolution map was utilized in PL-QCT for semi-automatic BMD measurements. CT values of ROIs used in PL-QCT measurements were directly used for phantom-based quantitative computed tomography (PB-QCT) BMD assessment. The study included 376 proximal humerus for comparison between PB-QCT and PL-QCT. Two sports medicine doctors measured the proximal humerus with PB-QCT and PL-QCT without knowing each other's results. Among them, 100 proximal humerus were included in the inter-operative and intra-operative BMD measurements for evaluating the repeatability and reproducibility of PL-QCT and PB-QCT.
RESULTS: A total of 188 patients with 376 shoulders were involved in this study. The consistency analysis indicated that the average bias between proximal humerus BMDs measured by PB-QCT and PL-QCT was 1.0 mg/cc (agreement range - 9.4 to 11.4; P > 0.05, no significant difference). Regression analysis between PB-QCT and PL-QCT indicated a good correlation (R-square is 0.9723). Short-term repeatability and reproducibility of proximal humerus BMDs measured by PB-QCT (CV: 5.10% and 3.41%) were slightly better than those of PL-QCT (CV: 6.17% and 5.64%).
CONCLUSIONS: We evaluated the bone quality of the proximal humeral using chest CT through the semi-automatic PL-QCT system for the first time. Comparison between it and PB-QCT indicated that it could be a reliable shoulder BMD assessment tool with acceptable accuracy and precision. This study developed and verify a semi-automatic PL-QCT for assessment of proximal humeral bone density based on CT to assist in the assessment of proximal humeral osteoporosis and development of individualized treatment plans for shoulders.
METHODS: Subcutaneous fat of the shoulder joint and trapezius muscle were used as calibration references for PL-QCT BMD measurement. A self-developed algorithm based on a convolution map was utilized in PL-QCT for semi-automatic BMD measurements. CT values of ROIs used in PL-QCT measurements were directly used for phantom-based quantitative computed tomography (PB-QCT) BMD assessment. The study included 376 proximal humerus for comparison between PB-QCT and PL-QCT. Two sports medicine doctors measured the proximal humerus with PB-QCT and PL-QCT without knowing each other's results. Among them, 100 proximal humerus were included in the inter-operative and intra-operative BMD measurements for evaluating the repeatability and reproducibility of PL-QCT and PB-QCT.
RESULTS: A total of 188 patients with 376 shoulders were involved in this study. The consistency analysis indicated that the average bias between proximal humerus BMDs measured by PB-QCT and PL-QCT was 1.0 mg/cc (agreement range - 9.4 to 11.4; P > 0.05, no significant difference). Regression analysis between PB-QCT and PL-QCT indicated a good correlation (R-square is 0.9723). Short-term repeatability and reproducibility of proximal humerus BMDs measured by PB-QCT (CV: 5.10% and 3.41%) were slightly better than those of PL-QCT (CV: 6.17% and 5.64%).
CONCLUSIONS: We evaluated the bone quality of the proximal humeral using chest CT through the semi-automatic PL-QCT system for the first time. Comparison between it and PB-QCT indicated that it could be a reliable shoulder BMD assessment tool with acceptable accuracy and precision. This study developed and verify a semi-automatic PL-QCT for assessment of proximal humeral bone density based on CT to assist in the assessment of proximal humeral osteoporosis and development of individualized treatment plans for shoulders.