ArticleClinical interventions in aging2025
Assessing Lumbar Spine Microstructure in Osteoporosis Using IVIM-DWI and IDEAL-IQ Sequences.
Article in Clinical interventions in aging, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Currently, dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) and quantitative CT (QCT) are commonly used in clinical practice to measure bone mineral density (BMD), offering diagnostic value but involving radiation and inability to visualize bone microstructure. This study aims to assess lumbar spine bone microstructure changes in normal, osteopenic, and osteoporotic groups using IVIM-DWI and IDEAL-IQ sequences to provide useful information for clinical practice. Methods: A total of 346 patients (50-87 years, 232 females, 114 males) underwent spinal DEXA and MRI. Based on the BMD obtained from DEXA, the patients were stratified into: normal (n=79), osteopenia (n=92), and OP (n=175) groups. Then to evaluated the results of IVIM-DWI and IDEAL-IQ and extracted quantitative parameters from regions of interest covering the L1 to L4 vertebrae. Group comparisons used One-way analysis of variance and the Kruskal‒Wallis Results: Significant differences existed in the ADCslow, f, FF and R2* between groups (P<0.05). BMD was weakly positively correlated with ADCslow, f, and R2* (r=0.494, 0.153, 0.182, 0.029, P<0.001) but a negative correlation with FF (r=-0.402, P<0.001). BMD and the ADCslow and R2* decreased but FF increased with age (P<0.05 for all), whereas no significant association existed between age and ADCfast or f value (P>0.05). FF had the highest areas under the curve (AUCs) (0.624, 0.831 and 0.747) and sensitivity (72.2%, 70.9% and 81.5%) in differentiating normal from osteopenia patients, normal from osteoporosis patients, and osteopenia from osteoporosis patients, respectively. ADCslow and f had the highest specificity (88%) in differentiating between normal and osteopenia patients, while ADCslow had the highest specificity (91.4%) in differentiating between normal and osteoporosis patients. Conclusion: Quantitative parameters extracted from IVIM-DWI and IDEAL-IQ have the potential to become good biomarkers for diagnosing OP.
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.