ArticleSkeletal radiology2025
Opportunistic screening for osteoporosis: validation study for L1 bone density measurements using contrast-enhanced chest and abdominal CTs.
Article in Skeletal radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Opportunistic Osteoporosis Screening from Routine Knee Radiographs Using a Deep Learning-Based Texture-Branch Cross-Attention Network.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2026Article
- Trends and disparities in DXA testing for osteoporosis among Medicare beneficiaries, 2005-2023.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2026Article
- Opportunistic osteoporosis screening using multiphase abdominal CT: reliable proximal femur BMD assessment with AI-assisted segmentation.Frontiers in medicine · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo retrospectively validate the diagnostic power of attenuation values on chest and abdomen/pelvis CECTs, together and separately, compared with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA)-determined osteoporosis diagnoses, and to determine thresholds for accurate osteoporosis diagnosis. MATERIALS AND
methodsSubjects were identified using the electronic health record. Included patients received DEXA and CECT scans within 60 days of each other. Patients were excluded if taking osteoporosis medication, undergoing dialysis, receiving hormone or cancer therapy, had a history of cancer, osseous metastases, fractures, or compressions. Minimum, mean, and maximum CECT attenuation values of L1 trabecular bone axial cross-sections were measured by a non-physician in Hounsfield units (HUs) using an elliptical region of interest (ROI) tool. DEXA diagnoses were dichotomized as positive (osteoporosis) or negative (osteopenia/normal). The area under the receiver-operator characteristic curves (AUCs) were compared to identify ideal CECT attenuation thresholds.
resultsTwo hundred nineteen subjects (mean age 66 ± 0.6 [range 35-92]; 196 (89%) females and 23 (11%) males) were included for analysis. Thirty-one (14%) subjects were positive and 188 (86%) were negative for osteoporosis. Minimum, mean, and maximum combined chest and abdomen/pelvis attenuation values demonstrated AUCs of 0.75 (95% CI 0.67-0.84), 0.931 (95% CI 0.88-0.99), and 0.82 (95% CI 0.73-0.90). The optimal mean attenuation threshold for osteoporosis diagnosis was 120 HU (84% sensitive, 90% specific). There was no statistical difference in diagnostic power between mean attenuation values of chest and abdomen/pelvis CECTs.
conclusionCECT mean attenuation values of either chest or abdomen/pelvis CECTs could be used as appropriate thresholds in screening for osteoporosis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39934236What 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.