Pediatric in vivo cross-calibration between the GE lunar prodigy and DPX-L bone densitometers

Dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) machine cross-calibration is an important consideration when upgrading from old to new technology. In a recent cross-calibration study using adult subjects, close agreement between GE Lunar DPX-L and GE Lunar Prodigy scanners was reported. The aim of this work...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Osteoporosis international 2005-12, Vol.16 (12), p.2157-2167
Hauptverfasser: CRABTREE, Nicola J, SHAW, N. J, BOIVIN, C. M, OLDROYD, B, TRUSCOTT, J. G
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 2167
container_issue 12
container_start_page 2157
container_title Osteoporosis international
container_volume 16
creator CRABTREE, Nicola J
SHAW, N. J
BOIVIN, C. M
OLDROYD, B
TRUSCOTT, J. G
description Dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) machine cross-calibration is an important consideration when upgrading from old to new technology. In a recent cross-calibration study using adult subjects, close agreement between GE Lunar DPX-L and GE Lunar Prodigy scanners was reported. The aim of this work was to cross-calibrate the two machines for bone and body composition parameters for pediatrics from age 5 years onwards. One-hundred ten healthy volunteers aged 5-20 years had total body and lumbar spine densitometry performed on DPX-L and Prodigy densitometers. Cross-calibration was achieved using linear regression and Bland-Altman analysis. There was close agreement between the machines, with r2 ranging from 0.85 to 0.99 for bone and body composition parameters. Paired t-tests demonstrated significant differences between machines that were dependent on scan acquisition mode, with the greatest differences reported for the smallest children. At the lumbar spine, Prodigy bone mineral density (BMD) values were on average 1.6% higher compared with DPX-L. For the total body, there were no significant differences in BMD; however, there were significant differences in bone mineral content (BMC) and bone area. For small children, the Prodigy measured lower BMC (9.4%) and bone area (5.8%), whereas for larger children the Prodigy measured both higher BMC (3.1%) and bone area (3.0%). A similar contrasting pattern was also observed for the body composition parameters. Prodigy values for lean body mass were higher (3.0%) for small children and lower (0.5%) for larger children, while fat body mass was lower (16.4%) for small children and higher (2.0%) for large children. Cross-calibration coefficients ranged from 0.84 to 1.12 and were significantly different from 1 (p
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s00198-005-2021-2
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_68903714</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>68903714</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c356t-64eeb0ed21a4958ec5bf8d0c9593e1cc1b578c9172ca216bde573e2f7baeb12e3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpdkEFLHTEUhYO06PPZH9BNCYW6S5ubTCaTZbFWhQd1UcFNCUnmThuZl7HJjMV_3-h7ILi6d_Gdw-Ej5D3wz8C5_lI4B9MxzhUTXAATB2QFjZRMmFa9IStupGamgdsjclzKHa8ZY_QhOYJWyKa-K_LrGvvo5hwDjYk-xIeJhjyVwoIbo89ujlOiHud_iInOf5BenNNxSS7T-zz18fcjdamn365v2Yb6KSHtMZU4T1ucMZcT8nZwY8F3-7smN9_Pf55dss2Pi6uzrxsWpGpn1jaInmMvwDVGdRiUH7qeB6OMRAgBvNJdMKBFcAJa36PSEsWgvUMPAuWanO5666i_C5bZbmMJOI4u4bQU23aGS13VrMnHV-DdtORUt1kBXSc7Lk2FYAc9m8g42Pscty4_WuD2SbzdibdVvH0Sb0XNfNgXL36L_Utib7oCn_aAK9XtkF0KsbxwWioFXMj_xUKLTQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>218838039</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Pediatric in vivo cross-calibration between the GE lunar prodigy and DPX-L bone densitometers</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings</source><creator>CRABTREE, Nicola J ; SHAW, N. J ; BOIVIN, C. M ; OLDROYD, B ; TRUSCOTT, J. G</creator><creatorcontrib>CRABTREE, Nicola J ; SHAW, N. J ; BOIVIN, C. M ; OLDROYD, B ; TRUSCOTT, J. G</creatorcontrib><description>Dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) machine cross-calibration is an important consideration when upgrading from old to new technology. In a recent cross-calibration study using adult subjects, close agreement between GE Lunar DPX-L and GE Lunar Prodigy scanners was reported. The aim of this work was to cross-calibrate the two machines for bone and body composition parameters for pediatrics from age 5 years onwards. One-hundred ten healthy volunteers aged 5-20 years had total body and lumbar spine densitometry performed on DPX-L and Prodigy densitometers. Cross-calibration was achieved using linear regression and Bland-Altman analysis. There was close agreement between the machines, with r2 ranging from 0.85 to 0.99 for bone and body composition parameters. Paired t-tests demonstrated significant differences between machines that were dependent on scan acquisition mode, with the greatest differences reported for the smallest children. At the lumbar spine, Prodigy bone mineral density (BMD) values were on average 1.6% higher compared with DPX-L. For the total body, there were no significant differences in BMD; however, there were significant differences in bone mineral content (BMC) and bone area. For small children, the Prodigy measured lower BMC (9.4%) and bone area (5.8%), whereas for larger children the Prodigy measured both higher BMC (3.1%) and bone area (3.0%). A similar contrasting pattern was also observed for the body composition parameters. Prodigy values for lean body mass were higher (3.0%) for small children and lower (0.5%) for larger children, while fat body mass was lower (16.4%) for small children and higher (2.0%) for large children. Cross-calibration coefficients ranged from 0.84 to 1.12 and were significantly different from 1 (p&lt;0.0001) for BMC and bone area. Bland-Altman plots showed that within the same scan acquisition modes, the magnitude of the difference increased with body weight. The results from this study suggest that the differences between machines are mainly due to differences in bone detection algorithms and that they vary with body weight and scan mode. In general, for population studies the differences are not clinically significant. However, for individual children being measured longitudinally, cross-over scanning may be required.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0937-941X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1433-2965</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s00198-005-2021-2</identifier><identifier>PMID: 16234997</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London: Springer</publisher><subject>Absorptiometry, Photon - instrumentation ; Absorptiometry, Photon - methods ; Adipose Tissue ; Adolescent ; Adult ; Biological and medical sciences ; Body composition ; Body Composition - physiology ; Body Size - physiology ; Bone Density - physiology ; Calibration ; Child ; Child, Preschool ; Diseases of the osteoarticular system ; Female ; Humans ; Lumbar Vertebrae - physiology ; Male ; Medical sciences ; Osteoporosis ; Osteoporosis. Osteomalacia. Paget disease ; Pediatrics ; Prodigies ; Radiation ; Zinc telluride</subject><ispartof>Osteoporosis international, 2005-12, Vol.16 (12), p.2157-2167</ispartof><rights>2006 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>International Osteoporosis Foundation and National Osteoporosis Foundation 2005</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c356t-64eeb0ed21a4958ec5bf8d0c9593e1cc1b578c9172ca216bde573e2f7baeb12e3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c356t-64eeb0ed21a4958ec5bf8d0c9593e1cc1b578c9172ca216bde573e2f7baeb12e3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27922,27923</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=17355102$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16234997$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>CRABTREE, Nicola J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>SHAW, N. J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>BOIVIN, C. M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>OLDROYD, B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>TRUSCOTT, J. G</creatorcontrib><title>Pediatric in vivo cross-calibration between the GE lunar prodigy and DPX-L bone densitometers</title><title>Osteoporosis international</title><addtitle>Osteoporos Int</addtitle><description>Dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) machine cross-calibration is an important consideration when upgrading from old to new technology. In a recent cross-calibration study using adult subjects, close agreement between GE Lunar DPX-L and GE Lunar Prodigy scanners was reported. The aim of this work was to cross-calibrate the two machines for bone and body composition parameters for pediatrics from age 5 years onwards. One-hundred ten healthy volunteers aged 5-20 years had total body and lumbar spine densitometry performed on DPX-L and Prodigy densitometers. Cross-calibration was achieved using linear regression and Bland-Altman analysis. There was close agreement between the machines, with r2 ranging from 0.85 to 0.99 for bone and body composition parameters. Paired t-tests demonstrated significant differences between machines that were dependent on scan acquisition mode, with the greatest differences reported for the smallest children. At the lumbar spine, Prodigy bone mineral density (BMD) values were on average 1.6% higher compared with DPX-L. For the total body, there were no significant differences in BMD; however, there were significant differences in bone mineral content (BMC) and bone area. For small children, the Prodigy measured lower BMC (9.4%) and bone area (5.8%), whereas for larger children the Prodigy measured both higher BMC (3.1%) and bone area (3.0%). A similar contrasting pattern was also observed for the body composition parameters. Prodigy values for lean body mass were higher (3.0%) for small children and lower (0.5%) for larger children, while fat body mass was lower (16.4%) for small children and higher (2.0%) for large children. Cross-calibration coefficients ranged from 0.84 to 1.12 and were significantly different from 1 (p&lt;0.0001) for BMC and bone area. Bland-Altman plots showed that within the same scan acquisition modes, the magnitude of the difference increased with body weight. The results from this study suggest that the differences between machines are mainly due to differences in bone detection algorithms and that they vary with body weight and scan mode. In general, for population studies the differences are not clinically significant. However, for individual children being measured longitudinally, cross-over scanning may be required.</description><subject>Absorptiometry, Photon - instrumentation</subject><subject>Absorptiometry, Photon - methods</subject><subject>Adipose Tissue</subject><subject>Adolescent</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Body composition</subject><subject>Body Composition - physiology</subject><subject>Body Size - physiology</subject><subject>Bone Density - physiology</subject><subject>Calibration</subject><subject>Child</subject><subject>Child, Preschool</subject><subject>Diseases of the osteoarticular system</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Lumbar Vertebrae - physiology</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Osteoporosis</subject><subject>Osteoporosis. Osteomalacia. Paget disease</subject><subject>Pediatrics</subject><subject>Prodigies</subject><subject>Radiation</subject><subject>Zinc telluride</subject><issn>0937-941X</issn><issn>1433-2965</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2005</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><recordid>eNpdkEFLHTEUhYO06PPZH9BNCYW6S5ubTCaTZbFWhQd1UcFNCUnmThuZl7HJjMV_3-h7ILi6d_Gdw-Ej5D3wz8C5_lI4B9MxzhUTXAATB2QFjZRMmFa9IStupGamgdsjclzKHa8ZY_QhOYJWyKa-K_LrGvvo5hwDjYk-xIeJhjyVwoIbo89ujlOiHud_iInOf5BenNNxSS7T-zz18fcjdamn365v2Yb6KSHtMZU4T1ucMZcT8nZwY8F3-7smN9_Pf55dss2Pi6uzrxsWpGpn1jaInmMvwDVGdRiUH7qeB6OMRAgBvNJdMKBFcAJa36PSEsWgvUMPAuWanO5666i_C5bZbmMJOI4u4bQU23aGS13VrMnHV-DdtORUt1kBXSc7Lk2FYAc9m8g42Pscty4_WuD2SbzdibdVvH0Sb0XNfNgXL36L_Utib7oCn_aAK9XtkF0KsbxwWioFXMj_xUKLTQ</recordid><startdate>20051201</startdate><enddate>20051201</enddate><creator>CRABTREE, Nicola J</creator><creator>SHAW, N. J</creator><creator>BOIVIN, C. M</creator><creator>OLDROYD, B</creator><creator>TRUSCOTT, J. G</creator><general>Springer</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>IQODW</scope><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>3V.</scope><scope>7QP</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7TS</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20051201</creationdate><title>Pediatric in vivo cross-calibration between the GE lunar prodigy and DPX-L bone densitometers</title><author>CRABTREE, Nicola J ; SHAW, N. J ; BOIVIN, C. M ; OLDROYD, B ; TRUSCOTT, J. G</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c356t-64eeb0ed21a4958ec5bf8d0c9593e1cc1b578c9172ca216bde573e2f7baeb12e3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2005</creationdate><topic>Absorptiometry, Photon - instrumentation</topic><topic>Absorptiometry, Photon - methods</topic><topic>Adipose Tissue</topic><topic>Adolescent</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Body composition</topic><topic>Body Composition - physiology</topic><topic>Body Size - physiology</topic><topic>Bone Density - physiology</topic><topic>Calibration</topic><topic>Child</topic><topic>Child, Preschool</topic><topic>Diseases of the osteoarticular system</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Lumbar Vertebrae - physiology</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Osteoporosis</topic><topic>Osteoporosis. Osteomalacia. Paget disease</topic><topic>Pediatrics</topic><topic>Prodigies</topic><topic>Radiation</topic><topic>Zinc telluride</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>CRABTREE, Nicola J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>SHAW, N. J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>BOIVIN, C. M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>OLDROYD, B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>TRUSCOTT, J. G</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Calcium &amp; Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Physical Education Index</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Osteoporosis international</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>CRABTREE, Nicola J</au><au>SHAW, N. J</au><au>BOIVIN, C. M</au><au>OLDROYD, B</au><au>TRUSCOTT, J. G</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Pediatric in vivo cross-calibration between the GE lunar prodigy and DPX-L bone densitometers</atitle><jtitle>Osteoporosis international</jtitle><addtitle>Osteoporos Int</addtitle><date>2005-12-01</date><risdate>2005</risdate><volume>16</volume><issue>12</issue><spage>2157</spage><epage>2167</epage><pages>2157-2167</pages><issn>0937-941X</issn><eissn>1433-2965</eissn><abstract>Dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) machine cross-calibration is an important consideration when upgrading from old to new technology. In a recent cross-calibration study using adult subjects, close agreement between GE Lunar DPX-L and GE Lunar Prodigy scanners was reported. The aim of this work was to cross-calibrate the two machines for bone and body composition parameters for pediatrics from age 5 years onwards. One-hundred ten healthy volunteers aged 5-20 years had total body and lumbar spine densitometry performed on DPX-L and Prodigy densitometers. Cross-calibration was achieved using linear regression and Bland-Altman analysis. There was close agreement between the machines, with r2 ranging from 0.85 to 0.99 for bone and body composition parameters. Paired t-tests demonstrated significant differences between machines that were dependent on scan acquisition mode, with the greatest differences reported for the smallest children. At the lumbar spine, Prodigy bone mineral density (BMD) values were on average 1.6% higher compared with DPX-L. For the total body, there were no significant differences in BMD; however, there were significant differences in bone mineral content (BMC) and bone area. For small children, the Prodigy measured lower BMC (9.4%) and bone area (5.8%), whereas for larger children the Prodigy measured both higher BMC (3.1%) and bone area (3.0%). A similar contrasting pattern was also observed for the body composition parameters. Prodigy values for lean body mass were higher (3.0%) for small children and lower (0.5%) for larger children, while fat body mass was lower (16.4%) for small children and higher (2.0%) for large children. Cross-calibration coefficients ranged from 0.84 to 1.12 and were significantly different from 1 (p&lt;0.0001) for BMC and bone area. Bland-Altman plots showed that within the same scan acquisition modes, the magnitude of the difference increased with body weight. The results from this study suggest that the differences between machines are mainly due to differences in bone detection algorithms and that they vary with body weight and scan mode. In general, for population studies the differences are not clinically significant. However, for individual children being measured longitudinally, cross-over scanning may be required.</abstract><cop>London</cop><pub>Springer</pub><pmid>16234997</pmid><doi>10.1007/s00198-005-2021-2</doi><tpages>11</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0937-941X
ispartof Osteoporosis international, 2005-12, Vol.16 (12), p.2157-2167
issn 0937-941X
1433-2965
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_68903714
source MEDLINE; SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings
subjects Absorptiometry, Photon - instrumentation
Absorptiometry, Photon - methods
Adipose Tissue
Adolescent
Adult
Biological and medical sciences
Body composition
Body Composition - physiology
Body Size - physiology
Bone Density - physiology
Calibration
Child
Child, Preschool
Diseases of the osteoarticular system
Female
Humans
Lumbar Vertebrae - physiology
Male
Medical sciences
Osteoporosis
Osteoporosis. Osteomalacia. Paget disease
Pediatrics
Prodigies
Radiation
Zinc telluride
title Pediatric in vivo cross-calibration between the GE lunar prodigy and DPX-L bone densitometers
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-13T19%3A40%3A28IST&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=Pediatric%20in%20vivo%20cross-calibration%20between%20the%20GE%20lunar%20prodigy%20and%20DPX-L%20bone%20densitometers&rft.jtitle=Osteoporosis%20international&rft.au=CRABTREE,%20Nicola%20J&rft.date=2005-12-01&rft.volume=16&rft.issue=12&rft.spage=2157&rft.epage=2167&rft.pages=2157-2167&rft.issn=0937-941X&rft.eissn=1433-2965&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s00198-005-2021-2&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E68903714%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=218838039&rft_id=info:pmid/16234997&rfr_iscdi=true