ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2026
Hounsfield unit measurements from different regions of interest in lumbar spine CT: correlation with DEXA-derived bone mineral density and fracture status.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis study compared Hounsfield unit (HU) measurements obtained from different regions of interest (ROIs) on lumbar CT for assessing bone mineral density (BMD) and discriminating osteoporosis and thoracolumbar fragility fracture status, aiming to evaluate whether ROI selection meaningfully influences HU-based assessment.
methodsFive HU measurement methods were evaluated using lumbar CT. Their correlations with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA)-derived BMD and their discriminative performance for osteoporosis and thoracolumbar fragility fracture status were analyzed. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were constructed, and pairwise comparisons of areas under the curve (AUCs) were performed using the DeLong test. A sensitivity analysis was additionally conducted after excluding substituted vertebral levels and recalculating mean lumbar HU using only non-substituted vertebrae.
resultsAll five HU measurement methods showed significant correlations with DEXA-derived BMD, and no statistically significant differences in discriminative performance were observed among the five ROI methods in the primary analysis. In the sensitivity analysis excluding substituted vertebral levels, the AUCs remained comparable across methods for osteoporosis (0.816-0.826) and thoracolumbar fragility fracture status (0.677-0.689), with all pairwise DeLong tests showing no statistically significant differences (all p > 0.05).
conclusionDifferent lumbar CT ROI methods demonstrated comparable performance in assessing BMD and discriminating thoracolumbar fragility fracture status, and sensitivity analysis confirmed that exclusion of substituted vertebral levels did not materially affect the results. No ROI method showed statistically significant superiority, suggesting that ROI selection may be guided by clinical feasibility and workflow convenience rather than by diagnostic performance alone. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This study compares five commonly used lumbar CT HU measurement methods and shows that their performance is broadly similar. The findings suggest that ROI selection may be guided primarily by clinical feasibility and workflow convenience, although further external validation is required before routine clinical application.
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.