Exclusion of Focal Vertebral Artifacts From Spine Bone Densitometry and Fracture Prediction: A Comparison of Expert Physicians, Three Computer Algorithms, and the Minimum Vertebra

Expert physicians and automated methods for the exclusion of vertebral levels in DXA scans containing focal artifacts were compared. All methods of vertebral exclusion led to a small improvement in fracture prediction. Computer algorithms performed at least as well as physicians. Introduction: Lumba...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of bone and mineral research 2007-06, Vol.22 (6), p.789-798
Hauptverfasser: Tsang, James F, Leslie, William D
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 798
container_issue 6
container_start_page 789
container_title Journal of bone and mineral research
container_volume 22
creator Tsang, James F
Leslie, William D
description Expert physicians and automated methods for the exclusion of vertebral levels in DXA scans containing focal artifacts were compared. All methods of vertebral exclusion led to a small improvement in fracture prediction. Computer algorithms performed at least as well as physicians. Introduction: Lumbar spine DXA is often confounded by focal artifacts. Clinical rules and automated methods for vertebral exclusion have been proposed, but their concordance, effect on diagnosis, and fracture prediction is unknown. Materials and Methods: We analyzed clinical DXA scans of the lumbar spine (20,478 women and 1534 men) performed from 1998 to 2002 (Province of Manitoba, Canada). Longitudinal health service records were assessed for the presence of nontrauma fracture codes after BMD testing. The effect of vertebral exclusions by expert physicians and several automated methods on diagnosis and prediction of incident fractures was compared. Results: Vertebral exclusions were reported by physicians in over one quarter of the scans (31% of women and 29% of men). All methods of vertebral exclusion significantly decreased the mean spine T‐score and increased the proportion of women designated as osteoporotic. κ values and ROC area under the curve (AUC) for physician‐computer agreement in the identification of abnormal scans indicated fair to moderate agreement in both women and men. Compared with no vertebral exclusions, a small increase in the hazard ratio and AUC for spine fracture and osteoporotic fracture prediction was seen after physician and computer exclusions. Compared with physician exclusions, AUC for prediction of osteoporotic fractures in men increased significantly with one computer algorithm (p = 0.004). The minimum vertebral T‐score enhanced fracture prediction compared with no exclusions but approximately doubled the prevalence of osteoporotic categorization. Conclusions: We observed fair to moderate agreement between the physician and computer methods for vertebral level exclusion. All methods of vertebral exclusion led to a small improvement in fracture prediction using the lumbar spine measurement. The automated algorithms performed at least as well as physicians when fractures were used as the endpoint.
doi_str_mv 10.1359/jbmr.070319
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_70516086</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>70516086</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4023-fd3a756e0ee17f0d2278d8ddd5b8e471861357d3ba79f73fa4b1ff3eb63b3e9e3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp90UFvFCEYBmBiNHatnrwbLnrRrTDMANvbdt2tNW1stHqdMMOHSzMMIzCx-7v8g2WdTXvzAiQ8eSHfi9BrSk4oqxYfbxsXToggjC6eoBmtCjYvuaRP0YxIWc5JyegRehHjLSGEV5w_R0dUMEEppzP0d33XdmO0vsfe4I1vVYd_QkjQhHxahmSNalPEm-Ad_j7YHvCZz8sn6KNN3kEKO6x6nUF2YwB8HUDbNuXEU7zEK-8GFWyc8td3Q87G19tdtK1VffyAb7YB4B8bEwS87H75YNPW5at9bNoCvrK9daN7-NdL9MyoLsKrw36MfmzWN6vP88uv5xer5eW8LUkegtFMiYoDAaDCEF0UQmqpta4aCaWgkufxCc0aJRZGMKPKhhrDoOGsYbAAdozeTblD8L9HiKl2NrbQdaoHP8ZakIpyInmG7yfYBh9jAFMPwToVdjUl9b6jet9RPXWU9ZtD7Ng40I_2UEoGbw9AxdyHCapvbXx0UsiCM5mdmNwf28Huf2_WX86uvlW8IkVBOGHsHsrSrio</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>70516086</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Exclusion of Focal Vertebral Artifacts From Spine Bone Densitometry and Fracture Prediction: A Comparison of Expert Physicians, Three Computer Algorithms, and the Minimum Vertebra</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Access via Wiley Online Library</source><source>Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current)</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><creator>Tsang, James F ; Leslie, William D</creator><creatorcontrib>Tsang, James F ; Leslie, William D</creatorcontrib><description>Expert physicians and automated methods for the exclusion of vertebral levels in DXA scans containing focal artifacts were compared. All methods of vertebral exclusion led to a small improvement in fracture prediction. Computer algorithms performed at least as well as physicians. Introduction: Lumbar spine DXA is often confounded by focal artifacts. Clinical rules and automated methods for vertebral exclusion have been proposed, but their concordance, effect on diagnosis, and fracture prediction is unknown. Materials and Methods: We analyzed clinical DXA scans of the lumbar spine (20,478 women and 1534 men) performed from 1998 to 2002 (Province of Manitoba, Canada). Longitudinal health service records were assessed for the presence of nontrauma fracture codes after BMD testing. The effect of vertebral exclusions by expert physicians and several automated methods on diagnosis and prediction of incident fractures was compared. Results: Vertebral exclusions were reported by physicians in over one quarter of the scans (31% of women and 29% of men). All methods of vertebral exclusion significantly decreased the mean spine T‐score and increased the proportion of women designated as osteoporotic. κ values and ROC area under the curve (AUC) for physician‐computer agreement in the identification of abnormal scans indicated fair to moderate agreement in both women and men. Compared with no vertebral exclusions, a small increase in the hazard ratio and AUC for spine fracture and osteoporotic fracture prediction was seen after physician and computer exclusions. Compared with physician exclusions, AUC for prediction of osteoporotic fractures in men increased significantly with one computer algorithm (p = 0.004). The minimum vertebral T‐score enhanced fracture prediction compared with no exclusions but approximately doubled the prevalence of osteoporotic categorization. Conclusions: We observed fair to moderate agreement between the physician and computer methods for vertebral level exclusion. All methods of vertebral exclusion led to a small improvement in fracture prediction using the lumbar spine measurement. The automated algorithms performed at least as well as physicians when fractures were used as the endpoint.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0884-0431</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1523-4681</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1359/jbmr.070319</identifier><identifier>PMID: 17371161</identifier><identifier>CODEN: JBMREJ</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Washington, DC: John Wiley and Sons and The American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR)</publisher><subject>Absorptiometry, Photon - methods ; Aged ; Algorithms ; Area Under Curve ; Biological and medical sciences ; bone densitometry ; Bone Density ; computer ; DXA ; Female ; fracture ; Fractures, Bone - epidemiology ; Fractures, Bone - etiology ; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology ; Humans ; Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted - methods ; Incidence ; Lumbar Vertebrae - chemistry ; Lumbar Vertebrae - diagnostic imaging ; Male ; Manitoba - epidemiology ; Middle Aged ; osteoporosis ; Osteoporosis - complications ; Osteoporosis - diagnosis ; Proportional Hazards Models ; Risk Assessment ; ROC Curve ; Sex Factors ; Skeleton and joints ; Spinal Fractures - epidemiology ; Spinal Fractures - etiology ; Vertebrates: osteoarticular system, musculoskeletal system</subject><ispartof>Journal of bone and mineral research, 2007-06, Vol.22 (6), p.789-798</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2007 ASBMR</rights><rights>2007 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4023-fd3a756e0ee17f0d2278d8ddd5b8e471861357d3ba79f73fa4b1ff3eb63b3e9e3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4023-fd3a756e0ee17f0d2278d8ddd5b8e471861357d3ba79f73fa4b1ff3eb63b3e9e3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1359%2Fjbmr.070319$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1359%2Fjbmr.070319$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1417,27924,27925,45574,45575</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=18782638$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17371161$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Tsang, James F</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Leslie, William D</creatorcontrib><title>Exclusion of Focal Vertebral Artifacts From Spine Bone Densitometry and Fracture Prediction: A Comparison of Expert Physicians, Three Computer Algorithms, and the Minimum Vertebra</title><title>Journal of bone and mineral research</title><addtitle>J Bone Miner Res</addtitle><description>Expert physicians and automated methods for the exclusion of vertebral levels in DXA scans containing focal artifacts were compared. All methods of vertebral exclusion led to a small improvement in fracture prediction. Computer algorithms performed at least as well as physicians. Introduction: Lumbar spine DXA is often confounded by focal artifacts. Clinical rules and automated methods for vertebral exclusion have been proposed, but their concordance, effect on diagnosis, and fracture prediction is unknown. Materials and Methods: We analyzed clinical DXA scans of the lumbar spine (20,478 women and 1534 men) performed from 1998 to 2002 (Province of Manitoba, Canada). Longitudinal health service records were assessed for the presence of nontrauma fracture codes after BMD testing. The effect of vertebral exclusions by expert physicians and several automated methods on diagnosis and prediction of incident fractures was compared. Results: Vertebral exclusions were reported by physicians in over one quarter of the scans (31% of women and 29% of men). All methods of vertebral exclusion significantly decreased the mean spine T‐score and increased the proportion of women designated as osteoporotic. κ values and ROC area under the curve (AUC) for physician‐computer agreement in the identification of abnormal scans indicated fair to moderate agreement in both women and men. Compared with no vertebral exclusions, a small increase in the hazard ratio and AUC for spine fracture and osteoporotic fracture prediction was seen after physician and computer exclusions. Compared with physician exclusions, AUC for prediction of osteoporotic fractures in men increased significantly with one computer algorithm (p = 0.004). The minimum vertebral T‐score enhanced fracture prediction compared with no exclusions but approximately doubled the prevalence of osteoporotic categorization. Conclusions: We observed fair to moderate agreement between the physician and computer methods for vertebral level exclusion. All methods of vertebral exclusion led to a small improvement in fracture prediction using the lumbar spine measurement. The automated algorithms performed at least as well as physicians when fractures were used as the endpoint.</description><subject>Absorptiometry, Photon - methods</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Algorithms</subject><subject>Area Under Curve</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>bone densitometry</subject><subject>Bone Density</subject><subject>computer</subject><subject>DXA</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>fracture</subject><subject>Fractures, Bone - epidemiology</subject><subject>Fractures, Bone - etiology</subject><subject>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted - methods</subject><subject>Incidence</subject><subject>Lumbar Vertebrae - chemistry</subject><subject>Lumbar Vertebrae - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Manitoba - epidemiology</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>osteoporosis</subject><subject>Osteoporosis - complications</subject><subject>Osteoporosis - diagnosis</subject><subject>Proportional Hazards Models</subject><subject>Risk Assessment</subject><subject>ROC Curve</subject><subject>Sex Factors</subject><subject>Skeleton and joints</subject><subject>Spinal Fractures - epidemiology</subject><subject>Spinal Fractures - etiology</subject><subject>Vertebrates: osteoarticular system, musculoskeletal system</subject><issn>0884-0431</issn><issn>1523-4681</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2007</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp90UFvFCEYBmBiNHatnrwbLnrRrTDMANvbdt2tNW1stHqdMMOHSzMMIzCx-7v8g2WdTXvzAiQ8eSHfi9BrSk4oqxYfbxsXToggjC6eoBmtCjYvuaRP0YxIWc5JyegRehHjLSGEV5w_R0dUMEEppzP0d33XdmO0vsfe4I1vVYd_QkjQhHxahmSNalPEm-Ad_j7YHvCZz8sn6KNN3kEKO6x6nUF2YwB8HUDbNuXEU7zEK-8GFWyc8td3Q87G19tdtK1VffyAb7YB4B8bEwS87H75YNPW5at9bNoCvrK9daN7-NdL9MyoLsKrw36MfmzWN6vP88uv5xer5eW8LUkegtFMiYoDAaDCEF0UQmqpta4aCaWgkufxCc0aJRZGMKPKhhrDoOGsYbAAdozeTblD8L9HiKl2NrbQdaoHP8ZakIpyInmG7yfYBh9jAFMPwToVdjUl9b6jet9RPXWU9ZtD7Ng40I_2UEoGbw9AxdyHCapvbXx0UsiCM5mdmNwf28Huf2_WX86uvlW8IkVBOGHsHsrSrio</recordid><startdate>200706</startdate><enddate>200706</enddate><creator>Tsang, James F</creator><creator>Leslie, William D</creator><general>John Wiley and Sons and The American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR)</general><general>American Society for Bone and Mineral Research</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>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200706</creationdate><title>Exclusion of Focal Vertebral Artifacts From Spine Bone Densitometry and Fracture Prediction: A Comparison of Expert Physicians, Three Computer Algorithms, and the Minimum Vertebra</title><author>Tsang, James F ; Leslie, William D</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4023-fd3a756e0ee17f0d2278d8ddd5b8e471861357d3ba79f73fa4b1ff3eb63b3e9e3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2007</creationdate><topic>Absorptiometry, Photon - methods</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Algorithms</topic><topic>Area Under Curve</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>bone densitometry</topic><topic>Bone Density</topic><topic>computer</topic><topic>DXA</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>fracture</topic><topic>Fractures, Bone - epidemiology</topic><topic>Fractures, Bone - etiology</topic><topic>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted - methods</topic><topic>Incidence</topic><topic>Lumbar Vertebrae - chemistry</topic><topic>Lumbar Vertebrae - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Manitoba - epidemiology</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>osteoporosis</topic><topic>Osteoporosis - complications</topic><topic>Osteoporosis - diagnosis</topic><topic>Proportional Hazards Models</topic><topic>Risk Assessment</topic><topic>ROC Curve</topic><topic>Sex Factors</topic><topic>Skeleton and joints</topic><topic>Spinal Fractures - epidemiology</topic><topic>Spinal Fractures - etiology</topic><topic>Vertebrates: osteoarticular system, musculoskeletal system</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Tsang, James F</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Leslie, William D</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>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of bone and mineral research</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Tsang, James F</au><au>Leslie, William D</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Exclusion of Focal Vertebral Artifacts From Spine Bone Densitometry and Fracture Prediction: A Comparison of Expert Physicians, Three Computer Algorithms, and the Minimum Vertebra</atitle><jtitle>Journal of bone and mineral research</jtitle><addtitle>J Bone Miner Res</addtitle><date>2007-06</date><risdate>2007</risdate><volume>22</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>789</spage><epage>798</epage><pages>789-798</pages><issn>0884-0431</issn><eissn>1523-4681</eissn><coden>JBMREJ</coden><abstract>Expert physicians and automated methods for the exclusion of vertebral levels in DXA scans containing focal artifacts were compared. All methods of vertebral exclusion led to a small improvement in fracture prediction. Computer algorithms performed at least as well as physicians. Introduction: Lumbar spine DXA is often confounded by focal artifacts. Clinical rules and automated methods for vertebral exclusion have been proposed, but their concordance, effect on diagnosis, and fracture prediction is unknown. Materials and Methods: We analyzed clinical DXA scans of the lumbar spine (20,478 women and 1534 men) performed from 1998 to 2002 (Province of Manitoba, Canada). Longitudinal health service records were assessed for the presence of nontrauma fracture codes after BMD testing. The effect of vertebral exclusions by expert physicians and several automated methods on diagnosis and prediction of incident fractures was compared. Results: Vertebral exclusions were reported by physicians in over one quarter of the scans (31% of women and 29% of men). All methods of vertebral exclusion significantly decreased the mean spine T‐score and increased the proportion of women designated as osteoporotic. κ values and ROC area under the curve (AUC) for physician‐computer agreement in the identification of abnormal scans indicated fair to moderate agreement in both women and men. Compared with no vertebral exclusions, a small increase in the hazard ratio and AUC for spine fracture and osteoporotic fracture prediction was seen after physician and computer exclusions. Compared with physician exclusions, AUC for prediction of osteoporotic fractures in men increased significantly with one computer algorithm (p = 0.004). The minimum vertebral T‐score enhanced fracture prediction compared with no exclusions but approximately doubled the prevalence of osteoporotic categorization. Conclusions: We observed fair to moderate agreement between the physician and computer methods for vertebral level exclusion. All methods of vertebral exclusion led to a small improvement in fracture prediction using the lumbar spine measurement. The automated algorithms performed at least as well as physicians when fractures were used as the endpoint.</abstract><cop>Washington, DC</cop><pub>John Wiley and Sons and The American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR)</pub><pmid>17371161</pmid><doi>10.1359/jbmr.070319</doi><tpages>10</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0884-0431
ispartof Journal of bone and mineral research, 2007-06, Vol.22 (6), p.789-798
issn 0884-0431
1523-4681
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_70516086
source MEDLINE; Access via Wiley Online Library; Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current); EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals
subjects Absorptiometry, Photon - methods
Aged
Algorithms
Area Under Curve
Biological and medical sciences
bone densitometry
Bone Density
computer
DXA
Female
fracture
Fractures, Bone - epidemiology
Fractures, Bone - etiology
Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology
Humans
Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted - methods
Incidence
Lumbar Vertebrae - chemistry
Lumbar Vertebrae - diagnostic imaging
Male
Manitoba - epidemiology
Middle Aged
osteoporosis
Osteoporosis - complications
Osteoporosis - diagnosis
Proportional Hazards Models
Risk Assessment
ROC Curve
Sex Factors
Skeleton and joints
Spinal Fractures - epidemiology
Spinal Fractures - etiology
Vertebrates: osteoarticular system, musculoskeletal system
title Exclusion of Focal Vertebral Artifacts From Spine Bone Densitometry and Fracture Prediction: A Comparison of Expert Physicians, Three Computer Algorithms, and the Minimum Vertebra
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-27T12%3A18%3A23IST&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=Exclusion%20of%20Focal%20Vertebral%20Artifacts%20From%20Spine%20Bone%20Densitometry%20and%20Fracture%20Prediction:%20A%20Comparison%20of%20Expert%20Physicians,%20Three%20Computer%20Algorithms,%20and%20the%20Minimum%20Vertebra&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20bone%20and%20mineral%20research&rft.au=Tsang,%20James%20F&rft.date=2007-06&rft.volume=22&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=789&rft.epage=798&rft.pages=789-798&rft.issn=0884-0431&rft.eissn=1523-4681&rft.coden=JBMREJ&rft_id=info:doi/10.1359/jbmr.070319&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E70516086%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=70516086&rft_id=info:pmid/17371161&rfr_iscdi=true