ArticlePloS one2026
Clinical validation of automatic phantom-less quantitative computed tomography for osteoporosis screening: fat region of interest comparison and multidevice validation.
Article in PloS one, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOsteoporosis significantly increases fracture risk and healthcare burden. Traditional bone mineral density screening requires dedicated equipment, limiting opportunistic screening. Phantom-less quantitative computed tomography (PL-QCT) enables bone density assessment during routine chest CT examinations but requires comprehensive validation. This study uses fat region of interest (ROI) comparison and multidevice validation to verify the feasibility and accuracy of automatic PL-QCT for osteoporosis screening.
methodsThis prospective study included 252 participants who underwent routine chest CT examinations. An automatic PL-QCT system was used to measure the volumetric bone mineral density at the T11-L1 vertebrae. Clinical validation compared measurements with phantom-based quantitative computed tomography (PB-QCT) using the system's standard pipeline with automatically selected subcutaneous fat ROIs and, for methodological comparison, manually selected visceral fat ROIs. Diagnostic performance was evaluated via receiver operating characteristic curve analysis with the DeLong test, whereas accuracy was assessed via linear regression, ICC, and Bland‒Altman analysis. Multidevice validation was conducted across five CT scanners.
resultsThe automated PL-QCT system under validation (using automatically selected subcutaneous fat ROI) demonstrated excellent diagnostic performance, with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.962 for osteoporosis and 0.794 for osteopenia, and showed strong correlation with PB-QCT (r = 0.867, ICC = 0.926). In the methodological comparison, the PL-QCT values derived from the manually selected visceral fat ROI showed significantly superior performance to those from the automated system (subcutaneous fat ROI) for the diagnosis of osteopenia (P = 0.029). Multidevice validation demonstrated consistency across the five CT scanners. Gender analysis revealed greater accuracy in females with distinct age-related bone density patterns.
conclusionsThis study validates that the automated PL-QCT system (utilizing its standard pipeline with automatically selected subcutaneous fat ROI) provides a reliable approach for opportunistic osteoporosis screening during routine chest CT examinations. A key methodological finding is that the manually selected visceral fat ROI demonstrated superior performance to the system's automatically selected subcutaneous fat ROI specifically in osteopenia detection, offering important evidence for optimizing future calibration strategies. The technology's cross-platform consistency, confirmed by multidevice validation, supports its broad clinical applicability.
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.