Loading…

Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, peripheral quantitative computed tomography, and micro-computed tomography techniques are discordant for bone density and geometry measurements in the guinea pig

This study aims to examine agreement among bone mineral content (BMC) and density (BMD) estimates obtained using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), peripheral quantitative computed tomography (pQCT), and micro-computed tomography (μCT) against high-resolution μCT and bone ash of the guinea pig...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of bone and mineral metabolism 2016-05, Vol.34 (3), p.266-276
Main Authors: Mak, Ivy L., DeGuire, Jason R., Lavery, Paula, Agellon, Sherry, Weiler, Hope A.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c429t-6ec50076f1e02db96969d6069da6b174ae6b757191a65456cbfdd882c521cf123
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c429t-6ec50076f1e02db96969d6069da6b174ae6b757191a65456cbfdd882c521cf123
container_end_page 276
container_issue 3
container_start_page 266
container_title Journal of bone and mineral metabolism
container_volume 34
creator Mak, Ivy L.
DeGuire, Jason R.
Lavery, Paula
Agellon, Sherry
Weiler, Hope A.
description This study aims to examine agreement among bone mineral content (BMC) and density (BMD) estimates obtained using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), peripheral quantitative computed tomography (pQCT), and micro-computed tomography (μCT) against high-resolution μCT and bone ash of the guinea pig femur. Middle-aged ( n  = 40, 86 weeks) male guinea pigs underwent in vivo followed by ex vivo DXA (Hologic QDR 4500A) scanning for intact and excised femur BMC and areal density. To assess bone architecture and strength, excised femurs were scanned on pQCT (Stratec XCT 2000L) as well as on two μCT scanners (LaTheta LCT-200; Skyscan 1174), followed by three-point bending test. Reproducibility was determined using triplicate scans; and agreement assessed using Bland–Altman plots with reference methods being high-resolution μCT (Skyscan) for BMD and bone ashing for BMC. All techniques showed satisfactory ex vivo precision (CV 0.05–4.3 %). However, bias compared to the reference method was highest (207.5 %) in trabecular bone volume fraction (BV/TV) measured by LaTheta, and unacceptable in most total femur and cortical bone measurements. Volumetric BMD (vBMD) and BV/TV derived by LaTheta and pQCT at the distal metaphysis were biased from the Skyscan by an average of 49.3 and 207.5 %, respectively. Variability of vBMD, BV/TV and cross-sectional area at the diaphysis ranged from −5.5 to 30.8 %. LaTheta best quantified total femur BMC with an upper bias of 3.3 %. The observed differences among imaging techniques can be attributable to inherent dissimilarity in construction design, calibration, segmentation and scanning resolution used. These bone imaging tools are precise but are not comparable, at least when assessing guinea pig bones.
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s00774-015-0675-1
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1787983497</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1787983497</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c429t-6ec50076f1e02db96969d6069da6b174ae6b757191a65456cbfdd882c521cf123</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkt-K1TAQxoMo7nH1AbyRgDdeGM20TdJcyvoXFrxR8K6k7bQnS5t0k3Shz-eLme5ZRURBAhPI_PJNZvIR8hT4K-BcvY45qIpxEIxLJRjcIweoSsGE5NV9cuAaKlYrpc_IoxivOAclFDwkZ4Xkoq40HMj3t6uZGDoM40a_sWA2atrow5KsnzGF7SVdMNjliMFM9Ho1Ltlkkr1B2vl5WRP2NPnZj8Esxwwb19PZdsGzv6Rpwu7o7PWKkZqAtLex86HPmnTwgbbe5TN00abtVmjE0xvojCauAWd0KVLraDoiHVfr0NDFjo_Jg8FMEZ_c7efk6_t3Xy4-ssvPHz5dvLlkXVXoxCR2Ig9MDoC86Fst8-olz8HIFlRlULb7fDQYKSohu3bo-7ouOlFAN0BRnpMXJ90l-L2H1My5AZwm49CvsQFVK12XlVb_g5YaSuA6o8__QK_8Glxu5JaSkvNyrw0nKo82xoBDswQ7m7A1wJvdDM3JDE02Q7OboYF859md8trO2P-68fP3M1CcgJhTbsTwW-l_qv4AsrDD5Q</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1783660032</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, peripheral quantitative computed tomography, and micro-computed tomography techniques are discordant for bone density and geometry measurements in the guinea pig</title><source>Springer Nature</source><creator>Mak, Ivy L. ; DeGuire, Jason R. ; Lavery, Paula ; Agellon, Sherry ; Weiler, Hope A.</creator><creatorcontrib>Mak, Ivy L. ; DeGuire, Jason R. ; Lavery, Paula ; Agellon, Sherry ; Weiler, Hope A.</creatorcontrib><description>This study aims to examine agreement among bone mineral content (BMC) and density (BMD) estimates obtained using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), peripheral quantitative computed tomography (pQCT), and micro-computed tomography (μCT) against high-resolution μCT and bone ash of the guinea pig femur. Middle-aged ( n  = 40, 86 weeks) male guinea pigs underwent in vivo followed by ex vivo DXA (Hologic QDR 4500A) scanning for intact and excised femur BMC and areal density. To assess bone architecture and strength, excised femurs were scanned on pQCT (Stratec XCT 2000L) as well as on two μCT scanners (LaTheta LCT-200; Skyscan 1174), followed by three-point bending test. Reproducibility was determined using triplicate scans; and agreement assessed using Bland–Altman plots with reference methods being high-resolution μCT (Skyscan) for BMD and bone ashing for BMC. All techniques showed satisfactory ex vivo precision (CV 0.05–4.3 %). However, bias compared to the reference method was highest (207.5 %) in trabecular bone volume fraction (BV/TV) measured by LaTheta, and unacceptable in most total femur and cortical bone measurements. Volumetric BMD (vBMD) and BV/TV derived by LaTheta and pQCT at the distal metaphysis were biased from the Skyscan by an average of 49.3 and 207.5 %, respectively. Variability of vBMD, BV/TV and cross-sectional area at the diaphysis ranged from −5.5 to 30.8 %. LaTheta best quantified total femur BMC with an upper bias of 3.3 %. The observed differences among imaging techniques can be attributable to inherent dissimilarity in construction design, calibration, segmentation and scanning resolution used. These bone imaging tools are precise but are not comparable, at least when assessing guinea pig bones.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0914-8779</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1435-5604</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s00774-015-0675-1</identifier><identifier>PMID: 26058491</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Tokyo: Springer Japan</publisher><subject>Absorptiometry, Photon ; Animals ; Bone Density - physiology ; Femur - diagnostic imaging ; Femur - metabolism ; Guinea Pigs ; Male ; Medicine ; Medicine &amp; Public Health ; Metabolic Diseases ; Original Article ; Orthopedics ; X-Ray Microtomography</subject><ispartof>Journal of bone and mineral metabolism, 2016-05, Vol.34 (3), p.266-276</ispartof><rights>The Japanese Society for Bone and Mineral Research and Springer Japan 2015</rights><rights>The Japanese Society for Bone and Mineral Research and Springer Japan 2016</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c429t-6ec50076f1e02db96969d6069da6b174ae6b757191a65456cbfdd882c521cf123</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c429t-6ec50076f1e02db96969d6069da6b174ae6b757191a65456cbfdd882c521cf123</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26058491$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Mak, Ivy L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>DeGuire, Jason R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lavery, Paula</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Agellon, Sherry</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Weiler, Hope A.</creatorcontrib><title>Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, peripheral quantitative computed tomography, and micro-computed tomography techniques are discordant for bone density and geometry measurements in the guinea pig</title><title>Journal of bone and mineral metabolism</title><addtitle>J Bone Miner Metab</addtitle><addtitle>J Bone Miner Metab</addtitle><description>This study aims to examine agreement among bone mineral content (BMC) and density (BMD) estimates obtained using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), peripheral quantitative computed tomography (pQCT), and micro-computed tomography (μCT) against high-resolution μCT and bone ash of the guinea pig femur. Middle-aged ( n  = 40, 86 weeks) male guinea pigs underwent in vivo followed by ex vivo DXA (Hologic QDR 4500A) scanning for intact and excised femur BMC and areal density. To assess bone architecture and strength, excised femurs were scanned on pQCT (Stratec XCT 2000L) as well as on two μCT scanners (LaTheta LCT-200; Skyscan 1174), followed by three-point bending test. Reproducibility was determined using triplicate scans; and agreement assessed using Bland–Altman plots with reference methods being high-resolution μCT (Skyscan) for BMD and bone ashing for BMC. All techniques showed satisfactory ex vivo precision (CV 0.05–4.3 %). However, bias compared to the reference method was highest (207.5 %) in trabecular bone volume fraction (BV/TV) measured by LaTheta, and unacceptable in most total femur and cortical bone measurements. Volumetric BMD (vBMD) and BV/TV derived by LaTheta and pQCT at the distal metaphysis were biased from the Skyscan by an average of 49.3 and 207.5 %, respectively. Variability of vBMD, BV/TV and cross-sectional area at the diaphysis ranged from −5.5 to 30.8 %. LaTheta best quantified total femur BMC with an upper bias of 3.3 %. The observed differences among imaging techniques can be attributable to inherent dissimilarity in construction design, calibration, segmentation and scanning resolution used. These bone imaging tools are precise but are not comparable, at least when assessing guinea pig bones.</description><subject>Absorptiometry, Photon</subject><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Bone Density - physiology</subject><subject>Femur - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Femur - metabolism</subject><subject>Guinea Pigs</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine &amp; Public Health</subject><subject>Metabolic Diseases</subject><subject>Original Article</subject><subject>Orthopedics</subject><subject>X-Ray Microtomography</subject><issn>0914-8779</issn><issn>1435-5604</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqNkt-K1TAQxoMo7nH1AbyRgDdeGM20TdJcyvoXFrxR8K6k7bQnS5t0k3Shz-eLme5ZRURBAhPI_PJNZvIR8hT4K-BcvY45qIpxEIxLJRjcIweoSsGE5NV9cuAaKlYrpc_IoxivOAclFDwkZ4Xkoq40HMj3t6uZGDoM40a_sWA2atrow5KsnzGF7SVdMNjliMFM9Ho1Ltlkkr1B2vl5WRP2NPnZj8Esxwwb19PZdsGzv6Rpwu7o7PWKkZqAtLex86HPmnTwgbbe5TN00abtVmjE0xvojCauAWd0KVLraDoiHVfr0NDFjo_Jg8FMEZ_c7efk6_t3Xy4-ssvPHz5dvLlkXVXoxCR2Ig9MDoC86Fst8-olz8HIFlRlULb7fDQYKSohu3bo-7ouOlFAN0BRnpMXJ90l-L2H1My5AZwm49CvsQFVK12XlVb_g5YaSuA6o8__QK_8Glxu5JaSkvNyrw0nKo82xoBDswQ7m7A1wJvdDM3JDE02Q7OboYF859md8trO2P-68fP3M1CcgJhTbsTwW-l_qv4AsrDD5Q</recordid><startdate>20160501</startdate><enddate>20160501</enddate><creator>Mak, Ivy L.</creator><creator>DeGuire, Jason R.</creator><creator>Lavery, Paula</creator><creator>Agellon, Sherry</creator><creator>Weiler, Hope A.</creator><general>Springer Japan</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QP</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20160501</creationdate><title>Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, peripheral quantitative computed tomography, and micro-computed tomography techniques are discordant for bone density and geometry measurements in the guinea pig</title><author>Mak, Ivy L. ; DeGuire, Jason R. ; Lavery, Paula ; Agellon, Sherry ; Weiler, Hope A.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c429t-6ec50076f1e02db96969d6069da6b174ae6b757191a65456cbfdd882c521cf123</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Absorptiometry, Photon</topic><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Bone Density - physiology</topic><topic>Femur - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Femur - metabolism</topic><topic>Guinea Pigs</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine &amp; Public Health</topic><topic>Metabolic Diseases</topic><topic>Original Article</topic><topic>Orthopedics</topic><topic>X-Ray Microtomography</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Mak, Ivy L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>DeGuire, Jason R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lavery, Paula</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Agellon, Sherry</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Weiler, Hope A.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Calcium &amp; Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Health and Medical</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>AUTh Library subscriptions: ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of bone and mineral metabolism</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Mak, Ivy L.</au><au>DeGuire, Jason R.</au><au>Lavery, Paula</au><au>Agellon, Sherry</au><au>Weiler, Hope A.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, peripheral quantitative computed tomography, and micro-computed tomography techniques are discordant for bone density and geometry measurements in the guinea pig</atitle><jtitle>Journal of bone and mineral metabolism</jtitle><stitle>J Bone Miner Metab</stitle><addtitle>J Bone Miner Metab</addtitle><date>2016-05-01</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>34</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>266</spage><epage>276</epage><pages>266-276</pages><issn>0914-8779</issn><eissn>1435-5604</eissn><abstract>This study aims to examine agreement among bone mineral content (BMC) and density (BMD) estimates obtained using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), peripheral quantitative computed tomography (pQCT), and micro-computed tomography (μCT) against high-resolution μCT and bone ash of the guinea pig femur. Middle-aged ( n  = 40, 86 weeks) male guinea pigs underwent in vivo followed by ex vivo DXA (Hologic QDR 4500A) scanning for intact and excised femur BMC and areal density. To assess bone architecture and strength, excised femurs were scanned on pQCT (Stratec XCT 2000L) as well as on two μCT scanners (LaTheta LCT-200; Skyscan 1174), followed by three-point bending test. Reproducibility was determined using triplicate scans; and agreement assessed using Bland–Altman plots with reference methods being high-resolution μCT (Skyscan) for BMD and bone ashing for BMC. All techniques showed satisfactory ex vivo precision (CV 0.05–4.3 %). However, bias compared to the reference method was highest (207.5 %) in trabecular bone volume fraction (BV/TV) measured by LaTheta, and unacceptable in most total femur and cortical bone measurements. Volumetric BMD (vBMD) and BV/TV derived by LaTheta and pQCT at the distal metaphysis were biased from the Skyscan by an average of 49.3 and 207.5 %, respectively. Variability of vBMD, BV/TV and cross-sectional area at the diaphysis ranged from −5.5 to 30.8 %. LaTheta best quantified total femur BMC with an upper bias of 3.3 %. The observed differences among imaging techniques can be attributable to inherent dissimilarity in construction design, calibration, segmentation and scanning resolution used. These bone imaging tools are precise but are not comparable, at least when assessing guinea pig bones.</abstract><cop>Tokyo</cop><pub>Springer Japan</pub><pmid>26058491</pmid><doi>10.1007/s00774-015-0675-1</doi><tpages>11</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0914-8779
ispartof Journal of bone and mineral metabolism, 2016-05, Vol.34 (3), p.266-276
issn 0914-8779
1435-5604
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1787983497
source Springer Nature
subjects Absorptiometry, Photon
Animals
Bone Density - physiology
Femur - diagnostic imaging
Femur - metabolism
Guinea Pigs
Male
Medicine
Medicine & Public Health
Metabolic Diseases
Original Article
Orthopedics
X-Ray Microtomography
title Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, peripheral quantitative computed tomography, and micro-computed tomography techniques are discordant for bone density and geometry measurements in the guinea pig
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-01T23%3A38%3A20IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Dual-energy%20X-ray%20absorptiometry,%20peripheral%20quantitative%20computed%20tomography,%20and%20micro-computed%20tomography%20techniques%20are%20discordant%20for%20bone%20density%20and%20geometry%20measurements%20in%20the%20guinea%20pig&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20bone%20and%20mineral%20metabolism&rft.au=Mak,%20Ivy%20L.&rft.date=2016-05-01&rft.volume=34&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=266&rft.epage=276&rft.pages=266-276&rft.issn=0914-8779&rft.eissn=1435-5604&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s00774-015-0675-1&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1787983497%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c429t-6ec50076f1e02db96969d6069da6b174ae6b757191a65456cbfdd882c521cf123%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1783660032&rft_id=info:pmid/26058491&rfr_iscdi=true