4.0 Article

Evidence for Enhanced Characterization of Cortical Bone Using Novel pQCT Shape Software

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL DENSITOMETRY
卷 13, 期 3, 页码 247-255

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jocd.2010.05.005

关键词

pQCT; tibia; bone shape; Gambia; young women

资金

  1. Medical Research Council [MC_U105960371] Funding Source: researchfish
  2. MRC [MC_U105960371] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Bone shape, mass, structural geometry, and material properties determine bone strength. This study describes novel software that uses peripheral quantitative computed tomography (pQCT) images to quantify cortical bone shape and investigates whether the combination of shape-sensitive and manufacturer's software enhances the characterization of tibiae from contrasting populations. Existing tibial pQCT scans (4% and 50% sites) from Gambian (n = 38) and British (n = 38) women were used. Bone mass, cross-sectional area (CSA), and geometry were determined using manufacturer's software; cross-sectional shape was quantified using shape-sensitive software. At 4% site, Gambian women had lower total bone mineral content (BMC: -15.4%), CSA (-13.4%), and trabecular bone mineral density (BMD: -19%), but higher cortical subcortical BMD (6.1%). At 50% site, Gambian women had lower cortical BMC (-7.6%), cortical CSA (-12.6%), and mean cortical thickness (-15.0%), but higher cortical BMD (4.9%) and endosteal circumference (8.0%). Shape-sensitive software supported the finding that Gambian women had larger tibial endosteal circumference (9.8%), thinner mean cortical thickness (-26.5%) but smaller periosteal circumference (-5.6%). Shape-sensitive software revealed that Gambian women had tibiae with shorter maximum width (-7.6%) and thinner cortices (-22% to 41.2%) and more closely resembled a circle or ellipse. Significant differences remained after adjusting for age, height, and weight. In conclusion, shape-sensitive software enhanced the characterization of tibiae in 2 contrasting groups of women.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据