Development and assessment of 3-dimensional computed tomography measures of proximal humeral bone density: a comparison to established 2-dimensional measures and intraoperative findings in patients undergoing shoulder arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The purpose of this study was to develop novel three-dimensional (3D) measures of bone density from computed tomography (CT) scans and to compare them with validated two-dimensional (2D) radiographic assessments of bone density. Patient demographic data were also analyzed to see if there were any predictors of bone density (age, sex, etiology). Methods The study group consisted of 290 consecutive patients undergoing primary shoulder arthroplasty surgery (total anatomic, reverse, and hemiarthroplasty). All underwent preoperative CT imaging. Three 3D CT measurements (metaphysis cancellous, metaphysis cortical, and proximal diaphysis) were developed and automated into software. The developed 3D measurements were compared with validated 2D measures (Tingart and Gianotti Index). Patient demographic data were correlated with these measurements. The difference between the size of the final sounder and of the final stem was calculated as Delta. Results There was moderately strong correlation between Tingart and Gianotti measures (0.674, P < .001), as well as between 3D metaphysis cancellous measurements and Tingart (0.645, P < .001). Decreased bone density was highly correlated with female sex. Tingart (area under the curve [AUC]: 0.87, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.82-0.91) and 3D metaphysis cancellous (AUC: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.72-0.84) had the highest correlation. These were significantly more than other measures of bone density ( P < .01). Decreased bone density measured with Tingart also had moderate correlation with advanced age (AUC: 0.67, 95% CI: 0.6-0.73), but less so for etiology (AUC: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.55-0.69). The 3D metaphysis cancellous measure had lower correlation with age (AUC: 0.59, 95% CI: 0.52-0.66) and etiology (AUC: 0.59, 95% CI: 0.52-0.65). The highest correlation with Delta (the difference between the final sounder and the stem size) was with the 3D metaphysis cancellous measure (AUC: 0.67, 95% CI: 0.59-0.73), followed by Tingart (AUC: 0.647, 95% CI: 0.57-0.671). A multiple regression model to predict Delta demonstrated the stronger prediction using 3D metaphysis cancellous (analysis of variance F-ratio of 42.6, P < .001) than Tingart (35.9, P < .001). Conclusion This study demonstrates that automated measures of bone density can be obtained from 3D CT scans. Of the three novel 3D measurements of bone density, the humeral metaphysis cancellous measurement was most correlated to the known 2D measures and most correlated to the intraoperative assessment of bone density (delta).
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 | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".