ArticleScientific reports2025
Establishing the effect of computed tomography reconstruction kernels on the measure of bone mineral density in opportunistic osteoporosis screening.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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 · 2026Article
- Phantomless calibration of glenoid trabecular bone density: improved accuracy using age-stratified reference tissue densities.JBMR plus · 2026Article
- Effects of contrast on opportunistic computed tomography vertebral bone mineral density analysis using internal calibration.JBMR plus · 2026Article
- Diagnostic performance of lumbar computed tomography Hounsfield unit thresholds for osteoporosis and osteopenia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2026Review
- Opportunistic Screening on Chest CT, From theAJR. American journal of roentgenology · 2026Review
- Age- and sex-related changes in proximal humeral volumetric BMD assessed via chest CT with a deep learning-based segmentation model.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2025Article
- Automated Volumetric Assessment of Hounsfield Units Using a Deep-Reasoning and Learning Model: Correlations with DXA Metrics.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Opportunistic computed tomography (CT) scans, which can assess relevant bones of interest, offer a potential solution for identifying osteoporotic individuals. However, it has been well documented that image protocol parameters, such as reconstruction kernel, impact the quantitative analysis of volumetric bone mineral density (vBMD) from CT scans. The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact that CT reconstruction kernels have on quantitative results for vBMD from clinical CT scans using phantom and internal calibration. 45 clinical CT scans were reconstructed using the standard kernel and seven alternative kernels: soft, chest, detail, edge, bone, bone plus and lung [GE HealthCare]. Two methods of image calibration, internal and phantom, were used to calibrate the scans. The total hip and fourth lumbar vertebra (L4) were extracted from the scans via deep learning segmentation. Integral vBMD was calculated based on both calibration techniques from CT scans reconstructed with the eight kernels. Linear regression and Bland-Altman analyses were used to determine the coefficient of determination [Formula: see text] and to quantify the agreement between the different kernels. Differences between the reconstruction kernels were determined using paired t tests, and mean differences from the standard were computed. Using internal calibration, the smoothest kernel (soft) yielded a mean difference of -0.95 mg/cc (-0.33%) compared to the reference standard at the L4 vertebra and 2.07 mg/cc (0.51%) at the left femur. The sharpest kernel (lung) yielded a mean difference of 25.36 mg/cc (9.63%) at the L4 vertebra and -25.10 mg/cc (-5.98%) at the left femur. Alternatively, using phantom calibration soft yielded higher mean differences than internal calibration at both locations, with mean differences of 1.21 mg/cc (0.42%) at the L4 vertebra and 2.53 mg/cc (0.65%) at the left femur. The most error-prone results stemmed from the use of the lung kernel, as this kernel displayed a mean difference of -21.90 mg/cc (-7.38%) and -17.24 mg/cc (-4.34%) at the L4 vertebra and femur, respectively. These results indicate when performing opportunistic CT analysis, errors due to interchanging smoothing kernels soft, chest and detail are negligible, but that interchanging between sharpening kernels (lung, bone, bone plus, edge) results in large errors that can significantly impact vBMD measures for osteoporosis screening and diagnosis.
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.