» Articles » PMID: 24692132

Fracture Risk Predictions Based on Statistical Shape and Density Modeling of the Proximal Femur

Overview
Date 2014 Apr 3
PMID 24692132
Citations 26
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Increased risk of skeletal fractures due to bone mass loss is a major public health problem resulting in significant morbidity and mortality, particularly in the case of hip fractures. Current clinical methods based on two-dimensional measures of bone mineral density (areal BMD or aBMD) are often unable to identify individuals at risk of fracture. We investigated predictions of fracture risk based on statistical shape and density modeling (SSDM) methods using a case-cohort sample of individuals from the Osteoporotic Fractures in Men (MrOS) study. Baseline quantitative computed tomography (QCT) data of the right femur were obtained for 513 individuals, including 45 who fractured a hip during follow-up (mean 6.9 year observation, validated by physician review). QCT data were processed for 450 individuals (including 40 fracture cases) to develop individual models describing three-dimensional bone geometry and density distribution. Comparison of mean fracture and non-case models indicated complex structural differences that appear to be responsible for resistance to hip fracture. Logistic regressions were used to model the relation of baseline hip BMD and SSDM weighting factors to the occurrence of hip fracture. Area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) for a prediction model based on weighting factors and adjusted by age was significantly greater than AUC for a prediction model based on aBMD and age (0.94 versus 0.83, respectively). The SSDM-based prediction model adjusted by age correctly identified 55% of the fracture cases (and 94.7% of the non-cases), whereas the clinical standard aBMD correctly identified 10% of the fracture cases (and 91.3% of the non-cases). SSDM identifies subtle changes in combinations of structural bone traits (eg, geometric and BMD distribution traits) that appear to indicate fracture risk. Investigation of important structural differences in the proximal femur between fracture and no-fracture cases may lead to improved prediction of those at risk for future hip fracture.

Citing Articles

Computer-aided diagnosis for China-Japan Friendship Hospital classification of necrotic femurs using statistical shape and appearance model based on CT scans.

Zhang J, Gong H, Ren P, Liu S, Jia Z, Shi P Med Biol Eng Comput. 2024; 63(3):867-883.

PMID: 39538108 DOI: 10.1007/s11517-024-03239-0.


Segmentation methods for quantifying X-ray Computed Tomography based biomarkers to assess hip fracture risk: a systematic literature review.

Falcinelli C, Cheong V, Ellingsen L, Helgason B Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2024; 12:1446829.

PMID: 39506973 PMC: 11537876. DOI: 10.3389/fbioe.2024.1446829.


Microvascular disease and early diabetes onset are associated with deficits in femoral neck bone density and structure among older adults with longstanding type 1 diabetes.

Johannesdottir F, Tedtsen T, Cooke L, Mahar S, Zhang M, Nustad J J Bone Miner Res. 2024; 39(10):1454-1463.

PMID: 39151032 PMC: 11425704. DOI: 10.1093/jbmr/zjae134.


Probabilistic Finite Element Analysis of Human Rib Biomechanics: A Framework for Improved Generalizability.

Kote V, Frazer L, Shukla A, Bailly A, Hicks S, Jones D Ann Biomed Eng. 2024; .

PMID: 38955891 DOI: 10.1007/s10439-024-03571-4.


Investigating the Impact of Blunt Force Trauma: A Probabilistic Study of Behind Armor Blunt Trauma Risk.

Kote V, Frazer L, Hostetler Z, Jones D, Davis M, Opt Eynde J Ann Biomed Eng. 2024; .

PMID: 38922366 DOI: 10.1007/s10439-024-03564-3.


References
1.
Pulkkinen P, Eckstein F, Lochmuller E, Kuhn V, Jamsa T . Association of geometric factors and failure load level with the distribution of cervical vs. trochanteric hip fractures. J Bone Miner Res. 2006; 21(6):895-901. DOI: 10.1359/jbmr.060305. View

2.
Kanis J, Black D, Cooper C, dArgent P, Dawson-Hughes B, De Laet C . A new approach to the development of assessment guidelines for osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int. 2002; 13(7):527-36. DOI: 10.1007/s001980200069. View

3.
Faulkner K, Gluer C, Grampp S, Genant H . Cross-calibration of liquid and solid QCT calibration standards: corrections to the UCSF normative data. Osteoporos Int. 1993; 3(1):36-42. DOI: 10.1007/BF01623175. View

4.
Goodyear S, Barr R, McCloskey E, Alesci S, Aspden R, Reid D . Can we improve the prediction of hip fracture by assessing bone structure using shape and appearance modelling?. Bone. 2012; 53(1):188-93. DOI: 10.1016/j.bone.2012.11.042. View

5.
Kanis J . Diagnosis of osteoporosis and assessment of fracture risk. Lancet. 2002; 359(9321):1929-36. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(02)08761-5. View