ArticleJournal of computer assisted tomography
Bone Mineral Density Estimations From Routine Multidetector Computed Tomography: A Comparative Study of Contrast and Calibration Effects.
Article in Journal of computer assisted tomography. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
28 citing papers in PubMed.
- Age- and sex-specific values of regional bone mineral density from opportunistic CT of the lower lumbar spine, pelvis, sacrum, and proximal femur.Skeletal radiology · 2026Article
- Effects of contrast on opportunistic computed tomography vertebral bone mineral density analysis using internal calibration.JBMR plus · 2026Article
- In Vivo Bone Mineral Density Assessment With Spectral Localizer Radiographs From Photon-Counting Detector CT: Prospective Comparison With DXA.Investigative radiology · 2025Article
- A comparative study of bone density in elderly people measured with AI and QCT.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2025Article
- Bone density measurement in patients with spinal metastatic tumors using chest quantitative CT deep learning model.Journal of bone oncology · 2024Article
- The Impact of Contrast Media on Lumbar Spine Bone Mineral Density Measured by Quantitative Computed Tomography.Ethiopian journal of health sciences · 2024Article
- Reproducibility of CT-based opportunistic vertebral volumetric bone mineral density measurements from an automated segmentation framework.European radiology experimental · 2024Article
- Article
- Addressing Challenges of Opportunistic Computed Tomography Bone Mineral Density Analysis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Automated Opportunistic Trabecular Volumetric Bone Mineral Density Extraction Outperforms Manual Measurements for the Prediction of Vertebral Fractures in Routine CT.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Opportunistic Screening Techniques for Analysis of CT Scans.Current osteoporosis reports · 2023Review
- CT Hounsfield unit is a reliable parameter for screws loosening or cages subsidence in minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Automated detection of the contrast phase in MDCT by an artificial neural network improves the accuracy of opportunistic bone mineral density measurements.European radiology · 2022Article
- The impact of imaging time and contrast agent dose on screening for osteoporosis with contrast-enhanced CT.European radiology experimental · 2022Article
- Level-Specific Volumetric BMD Threshold Values for the Prediction of Incident Vertebral Fractures Using Opportunistic QCT: A Case-Control Study.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2022Article
- Validation of a Patient-Specific Musculoskeletal Model for Lumbar Load Estimation Generated by an Automated Pipeline From Whole Body CT.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2022Article
- Opportunistic application of phantom-less calibration methods for fracture risk prediction using QCT/FEA.European radiology · 2021Article
- Automatic opportunistic osteoporosis screening in routine CT: improved prediction of patients with prevalent vertebral fractures compared to DXA.European radiology · 2021Article
- Bone density and strength from thoracic and lumbar CT scans both predict incident vertebral fractures independently of fracture location.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2021Article
- Gender-, Age- and Region-Specific Characterization of Vertebral Bone Microstructure Through Automated Segmentation and 3D Texture Analysis of Routine Abdominal CT.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionPhantom-based (synchronous and asynchronous) and phantomless (internal tissue calibration based) assessment of bone mineral density (BMD) in routine MDCT (multidetector computed tomography) examinations potentially allows for diagnosis of osteoporosis. Although recent studies investigated the effects of contrast-medium application on phantom-calibrated BMD measurements, it remains uncertain to what extent internal tissue-calibrated BMD measurements are also susceptible to contrast-medium associated density variation. The present study is the first to systemically evaluate BMD variations related to contrast application comparing different calibration techniques. PURPOSE: To compare predicative performance of different calibration techniques for BMD measurements obtained from triphasic contrast-enhanced MDCT. MATERIALS AND
methodsBone mineral density was measured on nonenhanced (NE), arterial (AR) and portal-venous (PV) contrast phase MDCT images of 46 patients using synchronous (SYNC) and asynchronous (ASYNC) phantom calibration as well as internal calibration (IC). Quantitative computed tomography (QCT) served as criterion standard. Density variations were analyzed for each contrast phase and calibration technique, and respective linear fitting was performed.
resultsBoth asynchronous calibration-derived BMD values (NE-ASYNC) and values estimated using IC (NE-IC) on NE MDCT images did reasonably well in predicting QCT BMD (root-mean-square deviation, 8.0% and 7.8%, respectively). Average NE-IC BMD was 2.7% lower when compared with QCT (P = 0.017), whereas no difference could be found for NE-ASYNC (P = 0.957). All average BMD estimates derived from contrast-enhanced scans differed significantly from QCT BMD (all P < 0.005) and led to notable systemic BMD biases (mean difference at least > 6.0 mg/mL). All regression fits revealed a consistent linear dependency (R range, 0.861-0.963). Overall accuracy and goodness of fit tended to decrease from AR to PV contrast phase. Highest precision and best linear fit could be reached using a synchronously scanned phantom (root-mean-square deviation, 9.4% for AR and 14.4% for PV). Both ASYNC and IC estimations performed comparably accurate and precise.
conclusionsOur data suggest that internal calibration driven BMD measurements derived from contrast-enhanced MDCT need the same amount of post hoc contrast-effect adjustment as measurements using phantom calibration. Adjustment using linear correction equations can correct for systematic bias of bone density variations related to contrast application, irrespective of the calibration technique used.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.