Quantitating Age-Related BMD Textural Variation from DXA Region-Free-Analysis: A Study of Hip Fracture Prediction in Three Cohorts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The risk of osteoporotic fracture is inversely related to bone mineral density (BMD), but how spatial BMD pattern influences fracture risk remains incompletely understood. This study used a pixel-level spatiotemporal atlas of proximal femoral BMD in 13,338 white European women (age 20-97 years) to quantitate age-related texture variation in BMD maps and generate a "reference" map of bone aging. We introduce a new index, called Densitometric Bone Age (DBA), as the age at which an individual site-specific BMD map (the proximal femur is studied here) best matches the median aging trajectory at that site in terms of the root mean squared error (RMSE). The ability of DBA to predict incident hip fracture and hip fracture pattern over 5 years following baseline BMD was compared against conventional region-based BMD analysis in a subset of 11,899 women (age 45-97 years), for which follow-up fracture records exist. There were 208 subsequent incident hip fractures in the study populations (138 femoral necks [FNs], 52 trochanteric [TR], 18 sites unspecified). DBA had modestly better performance compared to the conventional FN-BMD, TR-BMD, and total hip (TOT)-BMD in identifying hip fractures measured as the area under the curve (AUC) using receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve analysis by 2% (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.5% to 3.5%), 3% (95% CI, 1.0% to 4.0%), and 1% (95% CI, 0.4% to 1.6%), respectively. Compared to FN-BMD T-score, DBA improved the ROC-AUC for predicting TR fractures by ~5% (95% CI, 1.1% to 9.8%) with similar performance in identifying FN fractures. Compared to TR-BMD T-score, DBA improved the ROC-AUC for the prediction of FN fractures by ~3% (95% CI, 1.1% to 4.9%), with similar performance in identifying TR fractures. Our findings suggest that DBA may provide a spatially sensitive measure of proximal femoral fragility that is not captured by FN-BMD or TR-BMD alone. © 2022 The Authors. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR).
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".