ArticleComputers in biology and medicine2019
Comparing rib cortical thickness measurements from computed tomography (CT) and Micro-CT.
Article in Computers in biology and medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Integration of finite element method and artificial intelligence for evaluating PEEK composites in rib cage reconstruction process under impact conditions.Journal of materials science. Materials in medicine · 2025Article
- Article
- Quantifying the Human Subchondral Trabecular Bone Microstructure in Osteoarthritis with Clinical CT.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2022Article
- Review
- Ontogenetic changes to bone microstructure in an archaeologically derived sample of human ribs.Journal of anatomy · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe objective of this study was to compare cortical thickness of rib specimens scanned with clinical computed tomography (clinical-CT) at 0.5 and 1.0 mm slice thickness versus micro-CT at 0.05 mm slice thickness. Cortical thickness variation and accuracy was explored by anatomical region (anterior vs. lateral) and cross-sectional quadrants (superior, interior, inferior, and exterior).
methodsA validated cortical thickness algorithm was applied to clinical-CT and micro-CT scans of 17 rib specimens from six male post mortem human subjects aged 42-81 years. Each rib specimen was segmented and the thickness measurements were partitioned into cross-sectional quadrants in the anterior and lateral regions of the rib. Within each rib quadrant, the following were calculated: average thickness ± standard deviation, mean thickness difference between clinical-CT and micro-CT, and a thickness ratio between clinical-CT and micro-CT. Correlations from linear regression and paired-t tests were determined for paired clinical-CT and micro-CT results.
resultsOn average, the 0.5 mm clinical-CT underestimated the micro-CT thickness by 0.005 mm, while the 1.0 mm clinical-CT overestimated the micro-CT thickness by 0.149 mm. Thickness derived from 0.5 mm clinical-CT showed greater significant linear correlations (p < 0.05) with micro-CT thickness compared to 1.0 mm clinical-CT.
conclusionsThe small mean differences and thickness ratios near 1 show validation for the cortical thickness algorithm when applied to rib clinical-CT scans. Using clinical-CT scans as way to accurately measure rib cortical thickness offers a non-invasive way to analyze millions of CT scans collected each year from males and females of all ages.
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.