ArticlePloS one2024
Phantomless calibration of CT scans for hip fracture risk prediction in silico: Comparison with phantom-based calibration.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Phantomless calibration of glenoid trabecular bone density: improved accuracy using age-stratified reference tissue densities.JBMR plus · 2026Article
- Femur Fracture Risk Assessment in Patients with Lytic Metastases Using CT-Based Finite Element Models and Bone Crack Simulations Technique.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2026Article
- Predictive efficacy of phantom-less calibration of computed tomography for cage subsidence after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2026Article
- Comparative biomechanical analysis of pedicle screws versus cortical bone trajectory fixation in the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis.European journal of medical research · 2026Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Finite element models built from quantitative computed tomography images rely on element-wise mapping of material properties starting from Hounsfield Units (HU), which can be converted into mineral densities upon calibration. While calibration is preferably carried out by scanning a phantom with known-density components, conducting phantom-based calibration may not always be possible. In such cases, a phantomless procedure, where the scanned subject's tissues are used as a phantom, is an interesting alternative. The aim of this study was to compare a phantom-based and a phantomless calibration method on 41 postmenopausal women. The proposed phantomless calibration utilized air, adipose, and muscle tissues, with reference equivalent mineral density values of -797, -95, and 38 mg/cm3, extracted from a previously performed phantom-based calibration. A 9-slice volume of interest (VOI) centred between the femoral head and knee rotation centres was chosen. Reference HU values for air, adipose, and muscle tissues were extracted by identifying HU distribution peaks within the VOI, and patient-specific calibration was performed using linear regression. Comparison of FE models calibrated with the two methods showed average relative differences of 1.99% for Young's modulus1.30% for tensile and 1.34% for compressive principal strains. Excellent correlations (R2 > 0.99) were identified for superficial maximum tensile and minimum compressive strains. Maximum normalised root mean square relative error (RMSRE) values settled at 4.02% for Young's modulus, 2.99% for tensile, and 3.22% for compressive principal strains, respectively. The good agreement found between the two methods supports the adoption of the proposed methodology when phantomless calibration is needed.
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.