The Estimation of Second‐Generation HR‐pQCT From First‐Generation HR‐pQCT Using In Vivo Cross‐Calibration

ABSTRACT Second‐generation high‐resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography (HR‐pQCT) provides the highest resolution in vivo to assess bone density and microarchitecture in 3D. Although strong agreement of most outcomes measured with first‐ (XCTI) and second‐ (XCTII) generation HR‐pQCT h...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of bone and mineral research 2017-07, Vol.32 (7), p.1514-1524
Hauptverfasser: Manske, Sarah L, Davison, Erin M, Burt, Lauren A, Raymond, Duncan A, Boyd, Steven K
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 1524
container_issue 7
container_start_page 1514
container_title Journal of bone and mineral research
container_volume 32
creator Manske, Sarah L
Davison, Erin M
Burt, Lauren A
Raymond, Duncan A
Boyd, Steven K
description ABSTRACT Second‐generation high‐resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography (HR‐pQCT) provides the highest resolution in vivo to assess bone density and microarchitecture in 3D. Although strong agreement of most outcomes measured with first‐ (XCTI) and second‐ (XCTII) generation HR‐pQCT has been demonstrated, the ability to use the two systems interchangeably is unknown. From in vivo measurements, we determined the limits of estimating XCTII data from XCTI scans conducted in vivo and whether that estimation can be improved by linear cross‐calibration equations. These data are crucial as the research field transitions to the new technology. Our study design established cross‐calibration equations by scanning 62 individuals on both systems on the same day and then tested those cross‐calibrations on the same cohort 6 months later so that estimated (denoted as XCTII*) and “true” XCTII parameters could be compared. We calculated the generalized least‐significant change (GLSC) for those predictions. There was strong agreement between both systems for density (R2 > 0.94), macroarchitecture (R2 > 0.95), and most microarchitecture outcomes with the exception of trabecular thickness (Tb.Th, R2 = 0.51 to 0.67). Linear regression equations largely eliminated the systematic error between XCTII and XCTII* and produced a good estimation of most outcomes, with individual error estimates between 0.2% and 3.4%, with the exception of Tt.BMD. Between‐system GLSC was similar to within‐XCTI LSC (eg, 8.3 to 41.9 mg HA/cm3 for density outcomes). We found that differences between outcomes assessed with XCTI and XCTII can be largely eliminated by cross‐calibration. Tb.Th is poorly estimated because it is measured more accurately by XCTII than XCTI. It may be possible to use cross‐calibration for most outcomes when both scanner generations are used for multicenter and longitudinal studies. © 2017 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.
doi_str_mv 10.1002/jbmr.3128
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1877852399</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1877852399</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3888-16c1a3d4ba1e7548a875f43ccee5dec8dfb47a80c1d066789ac1b69e949a7d183</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp10U9PwyAYBnBiNG7-OfgFTBMveqjytrSFozbb1GiMOr0SSql2acuETrObH8HP6CeRWvVgshMBfnkCz4vQHuBjwDg4mWW1OQ4hoGtoCFEQ-iSmsI6GmFLiYxLCAG1ZO8MYx1Ecb6JBQANGCERDZKfPyhvZtqxFW-rG04V3r6Ru8s_3j4lqlOmPz-_cfn6bTr2x0bU3Lo1tV4kHWzZP3kXjPZav2kuNttZdpaIqs97uoI1CVFbt_qzb6GE8mqbn_tXN5CI9vfJlSCn1IZYgwpxkAlQSESpoEhUklFKpKFeS5kVGEkGxhBzHcUKZkJDFTDHCRJIDDbfRYZ87N_ploWzL69JKVVWiUXphOdAkoa4uxhw9-EdnemEa9zoODEjAAFjk1FGvZPcpowo-N644s-SAeTcJ3k2Cd5Nwdv8ncZHVKv-Tv9U7cNKDt7JSy9VJ_PLs-u478guuAZci</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1914291195</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The Estimation of Second‐Generation HR‐pQCT From First‐Generation HR‐pQCT Using In Vivo Cross‐Calibration</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals</source><source>Oxford Journals - Connect here FIRST to enable access</source><source>EZB Electronic Journals Library</source><creator>Manske, Sarah L ; Davison, Erin M ; Burt, Lauren A ; Raymond, Duncan A ; Boyd, Steven K</creator><creatorcontrib>Manske, Sarah L ; Davison, Erin M ; Burt, Lauren A ; Raymond, Duncan A ; Boyd, Steven K</creatorcontrib><description>ABSTRACT Second‐generation high‐resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography (HR‐pQCT) provides the highest resolution in vivo to assess bone density and microarchitecture in 3D. Although strong agreement of most outcomes measured with first‐ (XCTI) and second‐ (XCTII) generation HR‐pQCT has been demonstrated, the ability to use the two systems interchangeably is unknown. From in vivo measurements, we determined the limits of estimating XCTII data from XCTI scans conducted in vivo and whether that estimation can be improved by linear cross‐calibration equations. These data are crucial as the research field transitions to the new technology. Our study design established cross‐calibration equations by scanning 62 individuals on both systems on the same day and then tested those cross‐calibrations on the same cohort 6 months later so that estimated (denoted as XCTII*) and “true” XCTII parameters could be compared. We calculated the generalized least‐significant change (GLSC) for those predictions. There was strong agreement between both systems for density (R2 &gt; 0.94), macroarchitecture (R2 &gt; 0.95), and most microarchitecture outcomes with the exception of trabecular thickness (Tb.Th, R2 = 0.51 to 0.67). Linear regression equations largely eliminated the systematic error between XCTII and XCTII* and produced a good estimation of most outcomes, with individual error estimates between 0.2% and 3.4%, with the exception of Tt.BMD. Between‐system GLSC was similar to within‐XCTI LSC (eg, 8.3 to 41.9 mg HA/cm3 for density outcomes). We found that differences between outcomes assessed with XCTI and XCTII can be largely eliminated by cross‐calibration. Tb.Th is poorly estimated because it is measured more accurately by XCTII than XCTI. It may be possible to use cross‐calibration for most outcomes when both scanner generations are used for multicenter and longitudinal studies. © 2017 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0884-0431</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1523-4681</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/jbmr.3128</identifier><identifier>PMID: 28294415</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</publisher><subject>Aged ; Bone Density ; BONE MICROARCHITECTURE ; BONE MINERAL DENSITY ; Calibration ; Computed tomography ; CROSS‐CALIBRATION ; Data processing ; Female ; HIGH‐RESOLUTION PERIPHERAL QUANTITATIVE COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY ; Humans ; Male ; Mathematical models ; Middle Aged ; Scanning ; Tomography, X-Ray Computed - methods ; Tomography, X-Ray Computed - standards</subject><ispartof>Journal of bone and mineral research, 2017-07, Vol.32 (7), p.1514-1524</ispartof><rights>2017 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research</rights><rights>2017 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3888-16c1a3d4ba1e7548a875f43ccee5dec8dfb47a80c1d066789ac1b69e949a7d183</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3888-16c1a3d4ba1e7548a875f43ccee5dec8dfb47a80c1d066789ac1b69e949a7d183</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-2930-5997 ; 0000-0002-0348-5643</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2Fjbmr.3128$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2Fjbmr.3128$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>315,781,785,1418,27926,27927,45576,45577</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28294415$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Manske, Sarah L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Davison, Erin M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Burt, Lauren A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Raymond, Duncan A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Boyd, Steven K</creatorcontrib><title>The Estimation of Second‐Generation HR‐pQCT From First‐Generation HR‐pQCT Using In Vivo Cross‐Calibration</title><title>Journal of bone and mineral research</title><addtitle>J Bone Miner Res</addtitle><description>ABSTRACT Second‐generation high‐resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography (HR‐pQCT) provides the highest resolution in vivo to assess bone density and microarchitecture in 3D. Although strong agreement of most outcomes measured with first‐ (XCTI) and second‐ (XCTII) generation HR‐pQCT has been demonstrated, the ability to use the two systems interchangeably is unknown. From in vivo measurements, we determined the limits of estimating XCTII data from XCTI scans conducted in vivo and whether that estimation can be improved by linear cross‐calibration equations. These data are crucial as the research field transitions to the new technology. Our study design established cross‐calibration equations by scanning 62 individuals on both systems on the same day and then tested those cross‐calibrations on the same cohort 6 months later so that estimated (denoted as XCTII*) and “true” XCTII parameters could be compared. We calculated the generalized least‐significant change (GLSC) for those predictions. There was strong agreement between both systems for density (R2 &gt; 0.94), macroarchitecture (R2 &gt; 0.95), and most microarchitecture outcomes with the exception of trabecular thickness (Tb.Th, R2 = 0.51 to 0.67). Linear regression equations largely eliminated the systematic error between XCTII and XCTII* and produced a good estimation of most outcomes, with individual error estimates between 0.2% and 3.4%, with the exception of Tt.BMD. Between‐system GLSC was similar to within‐XCTI LSC (eg, 8.3 to 41.9 mg HA/cm3 for density outcomes). We found that differences between outcomes assessed with XCTI and XCTII can be largely eliminated by cross‐calibration. Tb.Th is poorly estimated because it is measured more accurately by XCTII than XCTI. It may be possible to use cross‐calibration for most outcomes when both scanner generations are used for multicenter and longitudinal studies. © 2017 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.</description><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Bone Density</subject><subject>BONE MICROARCHITECTURE</subject><subject>BONE MINERAL DENSITY</subject><subject>Calibration</subject><subject>Computed tomography</subject><subject>CROSS‐CALIBRATION</subject><subject>Data processing</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>HIGH‐RESOLUTION PERIPHERAL QUANTITATIVE COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Mathematical models</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Scanning</subject><subject>Tomography, X-Ray Computed - methods</subject><subject>Tomography, X-Ray Computed - standards</subject><issn>0884-0431</issn><issn>1523-4681</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp10U9PwyAYBnBiNG7-OfgFTBMveqjytrSFozbb1GiMOr0SSql2acuETrObH8HP6CeRWvVgshMBfnkCz4vQHuBjwDg4mWW1OQ4hoGtoCFEQ-iSmsI6GmFLiYxLCAG1ZO8MYx1Ecb6JBQANGCERDZKfPyhvZtqxFW-rG04V3r6Ru8s_3j4lqlOmPz-_cfn6bTr2x0bU3Lo1tV4kHWzZP3kXjPZav2kuNttZdpaIqs97uoI1CVFbt_qzb6GE8mqbn_tXN5CI9vfJlSCn1IZYgwpxkAlQSESpoEhUklFKpKFeS5kVGEkGxhBzHcUKZkJDFTDHCRJIDDbfRYZ87N_ploWzL69JKVVWiUXphOdAkoa4uxhw9-EdnemEa9zoODEjAAFjk1FGvZPcpowo-N644s-SAeTcJ3k2Cd5Nwdv8ncZHVKv-Tv9U7cNKDt7JSy9VJ_PLs-u478guuAZci</recordid><startdate>201707</startdate><enddate>201707</enddate><creator>Manske, Sarah L</creator><creator>Davison, Erin M</creator><creator>Burt, Lauren A</creator><creator>Raymond, Duncan A</creator><creator>Boyd, Steven K</creator><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QP</scope><scope>7TS</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2930-5997</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0348-5643</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>201707</creationdate><title>The Estimation of Second‐Generation HR‐pQCT From First‐Generation HR‐pQCT Using In Vivo Cross‐Calibration</title><author>Manske, Sarah L ; Davison, Erin M ; Burt, Lauren A ; Raymond, Duncan A ; Boyd, Steven K</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3888-16c1a3d4ba1e7548a875f43ccee5dec8dfb47a80c1d066789ac1b69e949a7d183</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Bone Density</topic><topic>BONE MICROARCHITECTURE</topic><topic>BONE MINERAL DENSITY</topic><topic>Calibration</topic><topic>Computed tomography</topic><topic>CROSS‐CALIBRATION</topic><topic>Data processing</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>HIGH‐RESOLUTION PERIPHERAL QUANTITATIVE COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Mathematical models</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Scanning</topic><topic>Tomography, X-Ray Computed - methods</topic><topic>Tomography, X-Ray Computed - standards</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Manske, Sarah L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Davison, Erin M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Burt, Lauren A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Raymond, Duncan A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Boyd, Steven K</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Calcium &amp; Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>Physical Education Index</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of bone and mineral research</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Manske, Sarah L</au><au>Davison, Erin M</au><au>Burt, Lauren A</au><au>Raymond, Duncan A</au><au>Boyd, Steven K</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The Estimation of Second‐Generation HR‐pQCT From First‐Generation HR‐pQCT Using In Vivo Cross‐Calibration</atitle><jtitle>Journal of bone and mineral research</jtitle><addtitle>J Bone Miner Res</addtitle><date>2017-07</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>32</volume><issue>7</issue><spage>1514</spage><epage>1524</epage><pages>1514-1524</pages><issn>0884-0431</issn><eissn>1523-4681</eissn><abstract>ABSTRACT Second‐generation high‐resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography (HR‐pQCT) provides the highest resolution in vivo to assess bone density and microarchitecture in 3D. Although strong agreement of most outcomes measured with first‐ (XCTI) and second‐ (XCTII) generation HR‐pQCT has been demonstrated, the ability to use the two systems interchangeably is unknown. From in vivo measurements, we determined the limits of estimating XCTII data from XCTI scans conducted in vivo and whether that estimation can be improved by linear cross‐calibration equations. These data are crucial as the research field transitions to the new technology. Our study design established cross‐calibration equations by scanning 62 individuals on both systems on the same day and then tested those cross‐calibrations on the same cohort 6 months later so that estimated (denoted as XCTII*) and “true” XCTII parameters could be compared. We calculated the generalized least‐significant change (GLSC) for those predictions. There was strong agreement between both systems for density (R2 &gt; 0.94), macroarchitecture (R2 &gt; 0.95), and most microarchitecture outcomes with the exception of trabecular thickness (Tb.Th, R2 = 0.51 to 0.67). Linear regression equations largely eliminated the systematic error between XCTII and XCTII* and produced a good estimation of most outcomes, with individual error estimates between 0.2% and 3.4%, with the exception of Tt.BMD. Between‐system GLSC was similar to within‐XCTI LSC (eg, 8.3 to 41.9 mg HA/cm3 for density outcomes). We found that differences between outcomes assessed with XCTI and XCTII can be largely eliminated by cross‐calibration. Tb.Th is poorly estimated because it is measured more accurately by XCTII than XCTI. It may be possible to use cross‐calibration for most outcomes when both scanner generations are used for multicenter and longitudinal studies. © 2017 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</pub><pmid>28294415</pmid><doi>10.1002/jbmr.3128</doi><tpages>11</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2930-5997</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0348-5643</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0884-0431
ispartof Journal of bone and mineral research, 2017-07, Vol.32 (7), p.1514-1524
issn 0884-0431
1523-4681
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1877852399
source MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library Journals; Oxford Journals - Connect here FIRST to enable access; EZB Electronic Journals Library
subjects Aged
Bone Density
BONE MICROARCHITECTURE
BONE MINERAL DENSITY
Calibration
Computed tomography
CROSS‐CALIBRATION
Data processing
Female
HIGH‐RESOLUTION PERIPHERAL QUANTITATIVE COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY
Humans
Male
Mathematical models
Middle Aged
Scanning
Tomography, X-Ray Computed - methods
Tomography, X-Ray Computed - standards
title The Estimation of Second‐Generation HR‐pQCT From First‐Generation HR‐pQCT Using In Vivo Cross‐Calibration
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-17T18%3A58%3A54IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20Estimation%20of%20Second%E2%80%90Generation%20HR%E2%80%90pQCT%20From%20First%E2%80%90Generation%20HR%E2%80%90pQCT%20Using%20In%20Vivo%20Cross%E2%80%90Calibration&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20bone%20and%20mineral%20research&rft.au=Manske,%20Sarah%20L&rft.date=2017-07&rft.volume=32&rft.issue=7&rft.spage=1514&rft.epage=1524&rft.pages=1514-1524&rft.issn=0884-0431&rft.eissn=1523-4681&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/jbmr.3128&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1877852399%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1914291195&rft_id=info:pmid/28294415&rfr_iscdi=true