ArticleBMC oral health2026
Automated fractal analysis of trabecular bone in multiple myeloma: a macro-based radiographic study.
Article in BMC oral health, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to investigate the applicability of fractal analysis for evaluating trabecular bone microarchitecture in multiple myeloma patients while implementing an automated macro-based workflow to provide reproducible and standardized post-processing analysis with reduced operator-dependent variability. METHODOLOGY: The study included 41 patients with multiple myeloma and 41 age- and sex-matched healthy controls. Fractal dimension measurements were initially performed manually using the conventional ImageJ/FracLac box-counting method. Subsequently, a macro-based automated workflow was evaluated for reproducibility and standardization of the analysis process.
resultsNo statistically significant differences were observed between the multiple myeloma and control groups for ROI1 (1.5329 ± 0.043 vs. 1.5368 ± 0.040, p = 0.674), ROI2 (1.5320 ± 0.042 vs. 1.5322 ± 0.041, p = 0.979), or ROI3 (1.5361 ± 0.049 vs. 1.5371 ± 0.048, p = 0.928). Intra-observer reliability was excellent (ICC = 0.91, 95% CI: 0.857-0.949), and agreement between manual and automated fractal dimension measurements was perfect.
conclusionsFractal dimension analysis did not show statistically significant differences between multiple myeloma patients and controls in this cohort, suggesting limited discriminative value of the method for structural assessment of multiple myeloma under the present conditions. However, the macro-focused workflow was compatible with manual measurements and may provide a standardized and repeatable framework that could help reduce operator-induced variability in image processing and analysis, thereby supporting methodological consistency in future imaging research.
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.