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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of bone and mineral research 2017-07, Vol.32 (7), p.1514-1524 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
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 > 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.</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 > 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.</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 & Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>Physical Education Index</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & 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 > 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.</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 |