↓ Skip to main content

Model for improved correlation of BMD values between abdominal routine Dual energy CT data and DXA scans

Overview of attention for article published in European Journal of Radiology, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
40 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Model for improved correlation of BMD values between abdominal routine Dual energy CT data and DXA scans
Published in
European Journal of Radiology, December 2017
DOI 10.1016/j.ejrad.2017.12.017
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mischa Woisetschläger, Anna Spångeus

Abstract

Osteoporosis is a common but underdiagnosed and undertreated disease causing severe morbidity and economic burden. The gold standard for detection of osteoporosis is DXA (dual energy x-ray absorptiometry), which is a dedicated examination for osteoporosis. Dual energy CT (DECT) examinations are increasingly used in daily routine for a wide variety of diagnoses. In the present study, we wanted to examine whether vBMD (volume bone mass density) could be evaluated as a side product in non-contrast as well as contrast phases as well as to evaluate a correction model taking known shortcomings for DXA into account. A total of 20 patients, i.e. 79 vertebrae (one excluded due to vertebral fracture), mean age 71 years (range 43-85) with a mean BMI (body mass index) of 26 (range 17-33) were examined with both abdominal/pelvic DECT as well as DXA. Furthermore, aortic calcium was measured as well as the presence of osteoarthritis of the spine (OAS) and osteoarthritis in facet joints (OAF) with a 5-grade scaling system. A significant correlation was found between DXA BMD and vBMD from DECT with no contrast (WNC) (r = 0.424, p = 0.001), and with venous contrast (WVC) (r = 0.402, p < 0.001), but no significant correlation was found with arterial contrast (WAC). Using multivariate linear regression with DXA BMD as dependent, two models were created combining DECT WNC, aortic calciumscore (ACS), OAS and BMI yielding an R2 = 0.616 (model 1) and replacement of WNC to WVC a R2 = 0.612 (model 2). The Pearson correlation between DXA and predictive DXA BMD value of model 1 was r = 0.785 (p < 0.001) and model 2 r = 0.782 (p < 0.001). There is a correlation between DXA BMD and DECT in non-contrast and venous contrast scans but not in arterial scans. The correlation is further improved by quantifying the degree of different confounding factors (osteoarthritis of the spine, body mass index and aortic calcium score) and taking these into account in an explanatory model. Future software solutions with DECT data as input data might be able to automatically measure the BMD in the trabecular bone as well as measuring the confounding factors automatically in order to obtain spinal DXA comparable BMD values.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 40 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 10%
Student > Bachelor 3 8%
Other 3 8%
Other 6 15%
Unknown 12 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 28%
Engineering 3 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Other 5 13%
Unknown 16 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 December 2017.
All research outputs
#22,764,772
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Radiology
#2,260
of 3,036 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#387,925
of 448,150 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Radiology
#31
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,036 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 448,150 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 59 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.