Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39183821›Full record

ArticleJBMR plus2024

Asynchronous calibration of a CT scanner for bone mineral density estimation: sources of error and correction.

Alice Dudle, Michael Ith, Rainer Egli, Johannes Heverhagen, Yvan Gugler, Christina Wapp, Daniela A Frauchiger, Kurt Lippuner, Christian Jackowski, Philippe Zysset

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JBMR plus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Development and evaluation of a simple CT-based DXA triage score for osteoporosis in candidates for lumbar spine surgery.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
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

10 authors.

Alice DudleARTORG Center for Biomedical Engineering Research, University of Bern, sitem-insel, Freiburgstrasse 3, Bern 3010, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8929-1454
Michael IthDepartment of Diagnostic, Interventional and Pediatric Radiology, Inselspital, University of Bern, Freiburgstrasse 10, Bern 3010, Switzerland.
Rainer EgliDepartment of Diagnostic, Interventional and Pediatric Radiology, Inselspital, University of Bern, Freiburgstrasse 10, Bern 3010, Switzerland.
Johannes HeverhagenDepartment of Diagnostic, Interventional and Pediatric Radiology, Inselspital, University of Bern, Freiburgstrasse 10, Bern 3010, Switzerland.
Yvan GuglerARTORG Center for Biomedical Engineering Research, University of Bern, sitem-insel, Freiburgstrasse 3, Bern 3010, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0007-1494-3009
Christina WappARTORG Center for Biomedical Engineering Research, University of Bern, sitem-insel, Freiburgstrasse 3, Bern 3010, Switzerland.
Daniela A FrauchigerARTORG Center for Biomedical Engineering Research, University of Bern, sitem-insel, Freiburgstrasse 3, Bern 3010, Switzerland.
Kurt LippunerDepartment of Osteoporosis, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Freiburgstrsasse 4, Bern 3010, Switzerland.
Christian JackowskiInstitute of Forensic Medicine, University of Bern, Murtenstrasse 28, Bern 3008, Switzerland.
Philippe ZyssetARTORG Center for Biomedical Engineering Research, University of Bern, sitem-insel, Freiburgstrasse 3, Bern 3010, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4712-7047

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The estimation of BMD with CT scans requires a calibration method, usually based on a phantom. In asynchronous calibration, the phantom is scanned separately from the patient. A standardized acquisition protocol must be used to avoid variations between patient and phantom. However, variations can still be induced, for example, by temporal fluctuations or patient characteristics. Based on the further use of 739 forensic and 111 clinical CT scans, this study uses the proximal femur BMD value ("total hip") to assess asynchronous calibration accuracy, using in-scan calibration as ground truth. It identifies the parameters affecting the calibration accuracy and quantifies their impact. For time interval and table height, the impact was measured by calibrating the CT scan twice (once using the phantom scan with closest acquisition parameters and once using a phantom scan with standard values) and comparing the calibration accuracy. For other parameters such as body weight, the impact was measured by computing a linear regression between parameter values and calibration accuracy. Finally, this study proposes correction methods to reduce the effect of these parameters and improve the calibration accuracy. The BMD error of the asynchronous calibration, using the phantom scan with the closest acquisition parameters, was -1.2 ± 1.7% for the forensic and - 1.6 ± 3.5% for the clinical dataset. Among the parameters studied, time interval and body weight were identified as the main sources of error for asynchronous calibration, followed by table height and reconstruction kernel. Based on these results, a correction method was proposed to improve the calibration accuracy.

Indexed as

BMDbone imagingCT calibrationosteoporosis screeningquantitative CT

Identifiers

PMID39183821
PMCPMC11344033

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.