Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38875268›Full record

ArticlePloS one2024

Phantomless calibration of CT scans for hip fracture risk prediction in silico: Comparison with phantom-based calibration.

Julia A Szyszko, Alessandra Aldieri, Antonino A La Mattina, Marco Viceconti

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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 · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
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

4 authors.

Julia A SzyszkoMedical Technology Lab, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, Bologna, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-8750-4719
Alessandra AldieriMedical Technology Lab, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, Bologna, Italy.
Antonino A La MattinaMedical Technology Lab, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, Bologna, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-9927-2393
Marco VicecontiMedical Technology Lab, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, Bologna, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-2293-1530

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Hip FracturesPhantoms, ImagingTomography, X-Ray ComputedAgedAged, 80 and overBone DensityCalibrationComputer SimulationFemaleFinite Element AnalysisHumansMiddle Aged

Identifiers

PMID38875268
PMCPMC11178222

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.