Accuracy of Volumetric Bone Mineral Density Measurement in Weight Bearing, Cone Beam Computed Tomography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Weight bearing computed tomography (WBCT) utilizes cone beam CT technology to provide assessments of lower limb joint structures while they are functionally loaded. Grey-scale values indicative of X-ray attenuation that are output from cone beam CT are challenging to calibrate, and their use for bone mineral density (BMD) measurement remains debatable. To determine whether WBCT can be reliably used for cortical and trabecular BMD assessment, we sought to establish the accuracy of BMD measurements at the knee using modern WBCT by comparing them to measurements from conventional CT. METHODS: A hydroxyapatite phantom with three inserts of varying densities was used to systematically quantify signal uniformity and BMD accuracy across the acquisition volume. We evaluated BMD in vivo (n = 5, female) using synchronous and asynchronous calibration techniques in WBCT and CT. To account for variation in attenuation along the height (z-axis) of acquisition volumes, we tested a height-dependent calibration approach for both WBCT and CT images. RESULTS: ) from Bland-Altman analysis between WBCT and CT measures in vivo that were not improved by height-dependent calibration. CONCLUSION: Whilst BMD accuracy from WBCT was found to be dependent on apparent density, accuracy was independent of the calibration technique (synchronous or asynchronous) and the location of the measurement site within the field of view. Overall, we found strong correlations between BMD measures from WBCT and CT and in vivo measures to be more accurate in trabecular bone regions. Importantly, WBCT can be used to distinguish between anatomically relevant differences in BMD, however future work is necessary to determine the repeatability and sensitivity of BMD measures in WBCT.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".