Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41649551›Full record

ArticleEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2026

Opportunistic osteoporosis screening using CT-based Hounsfield units: a machine learning approach for preoperative spine surgery planning.

Akihiko Hiyama, Daisuke Sakai, Hiroyuki Katoh, Masato Sato, Masahiko Watanabe

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in 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. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. 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

5 authors.

Akihiko HiyamaDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Tokai University School of Medicine, Kanagawa, Japan. a.hiyama@tokai.ac.jp.
Daisuke SakaiDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Tokai University School of Medicine, Kanagawa, Japan.
Hiroyuki KatohDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Tokai University School of Medicine, Kanagawa, Japan.
Masato SatoDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Tokai University School of Medicine, Kanagawa, Japan.
Masahiko WatanabeDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Tokai University School of Medicine, Kanagawa, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeOpportunistic assessment of vertebral bone quality using Hounsfield Units (HU) on preoperative computed tomography (CT) may complement dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) for osteoporosis screening. We developed a CT-based framework to predict osteoporosis from HU and basic demographics, restricting model development to cases with consistent HU–DXA agreement (“non-deviant”; residual within ± 1 SD of the axial HU–lowest T-score regression).

methodsWe retrospectively reviewed 162 patients (2018–2025) who underwent lumbar CT and DXA. HU was measured at L1–L4 using axial (three-slice) and sagittal (single-slice) methods; sagittal S1 HU was also obtained. Residual filtering retained 123 non-deviant cases. An XGBoost classifier used 26 features (21 HU measures plus age, sex, height, weight, BMI) and was evaluated in three stratified 80/20 splits (AUC, accuracy, F1, sensitivity, specificity). Feature importance was assessed.

resultsIn the non-deviant cohort (n = 123), both axial and sagittal HU values showed strong correlations with DXA lowest T-score (ρ = 0.820 and ρ = 0.766, respectively; both p < 0.001). The XGBoost model achieved an average AUC of 0.804 ± 0.067, sensitivity of 0.857 ± 0.143, specificity of 0.759 ± 0.128, accuracy of 0.787 ± 0.061, and F1 score of 0.694 ± 0.048. HU measurements at L3 and L4, sex, body weight, and height were among the top predictive features.

conclusionsIn a carefully selected cohort demonstrating a stable HU–lowest T-score relationship, both axial and sagittal HU measurements demonstrated strong correlations with DXA lowest T-score, supporting their use as surrogate indicators of bone quality. The XGBoost model, trained on CT-derived HU values and demographic data, exhibited moderate classification performance within the non-deviant subset. These findings support the clinical utility of HU-based opportunistic screening as a triage approach to prompt confirmatory assessment and perioperative bone health optimization, particularly in settings where DXA is unavailable. These results represent proof-of-concept performance in HU–DXA–concordant cases and may not generalize to unfiltered populations.

Indexed as

Lumbar VertebraeMachine LearningOsteoporosisTomography, X-Ray ComputedAbsorptiometry, PhotonAgedBone DensityBoosting Machine Learning AlgorithmsFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPreoperative CareRetrospective StudiesComputed tomographyDual-energy X-ray absorptiometryHounsfield unitsMachine learningOpportunistic osteoporosis screeningOsteoporosisPreoperative spine assessmentVertebral bone qualityXGBoost

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.