Study of DXA-derived lateral–medial cortical bone thickness in assessing hip fracture risk
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The currently available clinical tools have limited accuracy in predicting hip fracture risk in individuals. We investigated the possibility of using normalized cortical bone thickness (NCBT) estimated from the patient's hip DXA (dual energy X-ray absorptiometry) as an alternative predictor of hip fracture risk. Hip fracture risk index (HFRI) derived from subject-specific DXA-based finite element model was used as a guideline in constructing the mathematical expression of NCBT. We hypothesized that if NCBT has stronger correlations with HFRI than the single risk factors such as areal BMD (aBMD), then NCBT can be a better predictor. The hypothesis was studied using 210 clinical cases, including 60 hip fracture cases, obtained from the Manitoba Bone Mineral Density Database. The results showed that, in general HFRI has much stronger correlations with NCBT than any of the single risk factors; the strongest correlation was observed at the superior side of the narrowest femoral neck with r 2 = 0.81 ( p < 0.001), which is much higher than the correlation with femoral aBMD, r 2 = 0.50 ( p < 0.001). The capability of aBMD, NCBT, and HFRI in discriminating the hip fracture cases from the non-fracture ones, expressed as the area under the curve with 95% confidence interval, AUC (95% CI), is respectively 0.627 (0.593–0.657), 0.714 (0.644–0.784) and 0.839 (0.787–0.892). The short-term repeatability of aBMD, NCBT, and HFRI, measured by the coefficient of variation (CV, %), was found to be in the range of (0.64–1.22), (1.93–3.41), (3.10–4.16), respectively. We thus concluded that NCBT is potentially a better predictor of hip fracture risk.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".