Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26993059›Full record

ArticleBone2016

MRI-derived bound and pore water concentrations as predictors of fracture resistance.

Mary Kate Manhard, Sasidhar Uppuganti, Mathilde Granke, Daniel F Gochberg, Jeffry S Nyman, Mark D Does

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Bone, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing papers in PubMed
5.2field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

43 citing papers in PubMed, 62 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Ultrashort echo time MRI detects significantly lower collagen but higher pore water in the tibial cortex of female patients with osteopenia and osteoporosis.Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. In Vivo Assessment of Bone Quality Without X-rays.Current osteoporosis reports · 2024
    Review
  8. Bone Biomarkers Based on Magnetic Resonance Imaging.Seminars in musculoskeletal radiology · 2024
    Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. TNMR in biomedicine · 2023
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Mary Kate ManhardBiomedical Engineering, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, United States; Vanderbilt University Institute of Imaging Science, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, United States.
Sasidhar UppugantiDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery & Rehabilitation, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, United States; Tennessee Valley Healthcare System, Department of Veterans Affairs, Nashville, TN, United States; Center for Bone Biology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, United States.
Mathilde GrankeDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery & Rehabilitation, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, United States; Tennessee Valley Healthcare System, Department of Veterans Affairs, Nashville, TN, United States; Center for Bone Biology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, United States.
Daniel F GochbergVanderbilt University Institute of Imaging Science, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, United States; Radiology & Radiological Sciences, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, United States; Department of Physics and Astronomy, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, United States.
Jeffry S NymanBiomedical Engineering, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, United States; Vanderbilt University Institute of Imaging Science, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, United States; Department of Orthopaedic Surgery & Rehabilitation, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, United States; Tennessee Valley Healthcare System, Department of Veterans Affairs, Nashville, TN, United States; Center for Bone Biology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, United States.
Mark D DoesBiomedical Engineering, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, United States; Vanderbilt University Institute of Imaging Science, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, United States; Radiology & Radiological Sciences, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, United States; Electrical Engineering, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, United States. Electronic address: mark.does@vanderbilt.edu.
Vanderbilt University · USVA Tennessee Valley Healthcare System · US

Funding

Bone Fracture Risk Assessment Through Bound - and Pore - Water MRIR01EB014308 · NIBIB · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY · PI DOES, MARK D · 2012 to 2020
$3.2M
Novel ultrahigh resolution microCT imaging systemS10RR027631 · NCRR · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY · PI PERRIEN, DANIEL S · 2010 to 2010
$460k
NCRR NIH HHS S10 RR027631NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB014308
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Accurately predicting fracture risk in the clinic is challenging because the determinants are multi-factorial. A common approach to fracture risk assessment is to combine X-ray-based imaging methods such as dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) with an online Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) that includes additional risk factors such as age, family history, and prior fracture incidents. This approach still does not adequately diagnose many individuals at risk, especially those with certain diseases like type 2 diabetes. As such, this study investigated bound water and pore water concentrations (Cbw and Cpw) from ultra-short echo time (UTE) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as new predictors of fracture risk. Ex vivo cadaveric arms were imaged with UTE MRI as well as with DXA and high-resolution micro-computed tomography (μCT), and imaging measures were compared to both whole-bone structural and material properties as determined by three-point bending tests of the distal-third radius. While DXA-derived areal bone mineral density (aBMD) and μCT-derived volumetric BMD correlated well with structural strength, they moderately correlated with the estimate material strength with gender being a significant covariate for aBMD. MRI-derived measures of Cbw and Cpw had a similar predictive ability of material strength as aBMD but did so independently of gender. In addition, Cbw was the only imaging parameter to significantly correlate with toughness, the energy dissipated during fracture. Notably, the strength of the correlations with the material properties of bone tended to be higher when a larger endosteal region was used to determine Cbw and Cpw. These results indicate that MRI measures of Cbw and Cpw have the ability to probe bone material properties independent of bone structure or subject gender. In particular, toughness is a property of fracture resistance that is not explained by X-ray based methods. Thus, these MRI-derived measures of Cbw and Cpw in cortical bone have the potential to be useful in clinical populations for evaluating fracture risk, especially involving diseases that affect material properties of the bone beyond its strength.

Indexed as

Magnetic Resonance ImagingAgedAged, 80 and overBiomechanical PhenomenaFemaleFractures, BoneHumansMaleMiddle AgedPorosityWaterX-Ray MicrotomographyWaterBound and pore waterFracture riskStrengthToughnessUTE MRI

Identifiers

PMID26993059
PMCPMC4862893
OpenAlexW2298650860

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.