↓ Skip to main content

Patient-specific finite element estimated femur strength as a predictor of the risk of hip fracture: the effect of methodological determinants

Overview of attention for article published in Osteoporosis International, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
83 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
156 Mendeley
Title
Patient-specific finite element estimated femur strength as a predictor of the risk of hip fracture: the effect of methodological determinants
Published in
Osteoporosis International, April 2016
DOI 10.1007/s00198-016-3597-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

M. Qasim, G. Farinella, J. Zhang, X. Li, L. Yang, R. Eastell, M. Viceconti

Abstract

A finite element modelling pipeline was adopted to predict femur strength in a retrospective cohort of 100 women. The effects of the imaging protocol and the meshing technique on the ability of the femur strength to classify the fracture and the control groups were analysed. The clinical standard to estimate the risk of osteoporotic hip fracture is based on the areal bone mineral density (aBMD). A few retrospective studies have concluded that finite element (FE)-based femoral strength is a better classifier of fracture and control groups than the aBMD, while others could not find significant differences. We investigated the effect of the imaging protocol and of the FE modelling techniques on the discriminatory power of femoral strength. A retrospective cohort of 100 post-menopausal women (50 with hip fracture, 50 controls) was examined. Each subject received a dual-energy absorptiometry (DXA) exam and a computed tomography (CT) scan of the proximal femur region. Each case was modelled a number of times, using different modelling pipelines, and the results were compared in terms of accuracy in discriminating the fracture and the control cases. The baseline pipeline involved local anatomical orientation and mesh morphing. Revised pipelines involved global anatomical orientation using a full-femur atlas registration and an optimised meshing algorithm. Minimum physiological (MPhyS) and pathological (MPatS) strengths were estimated for each subject. Area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) was calculated to compare the ability of MPhyS, MPatS and aBMD to classify the control and the cases. Differences in the modelling protocol were found to considerably affect the accuracy of the FE predictors. For the most optimised protocol, logistic regression showed aBMDNeck, MPhyS and MPatS to be significantly associated with the facture status, with AUC of 0.75, 0.75 and 0.79, respectively. The study emphasized the necessity of modelling the whole femur anatomy to develop a robust FE-based tool for hip fracture risk assessment. FE-strength performed only slightly better than the aBMD in discriminating the fracture and control cases. Differences between the published studies can be explained in terms of differences in the modelling protocol and cohort design.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users 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 156 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 1%
Spain 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Unknown 152 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 34 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 30 19%
Researcher 22 14%
Student > Bachelor 14 9%
Other 9 6%
Other 23 15%
Unknown 24 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 70 45%
Medicine and Dentistry 17 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 3%
Materials Science 4 3%
Other 12 8%
Unknown 43 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 25 September 2016.
All research outputs
#14,258,962
of 22,865,319 outputs
Outputs from Osteoporosis International
#2,122
of 3,615 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#160,017
of 299,155 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Osteoporosis International
#33
of 98 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,865,319 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,615 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% 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 299,155 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 98 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.