Reliability of HR-pQCT derived cortical bone structural parameters when using uncorrected instead of corrected automatically generated endocortical contours in a cross-sectional study: the Maastricht study

E.A.C. de Waard, C. Sarodnik, A. Pennings, J.J.A. de Jong, H.H.C.M. Savelberg, T.A. van Geel, C.J. van der Kallen, C.D.A. Stehouwer, M.T. Schram, N. Schaper, P.C. Dagnelie, P.P.M.M. Geusens, A. Koster, B. van Rietbergen, J.P.W. van den Bergh

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

5 Citations (Scopus)
50 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Most HR-pQCT studies examining cortical bone use an automatically generated endocortical contour (AUTO), which is manually corrected if it visually deviates from the apparent endocortical margin (semi-automatic method, S-AUTO). This technique may be prone to operator-related variability and is time consuming. We examined whether the AUTO instead of the S-AUTO method can be used for cortical bone analysis. Fifty scans of the distal radius and tibia from participants of The Maastricht Study were evaluated with AUTO, and subsequently with S-AUTO by three independent operators. AUTO cortical bone parameters were compared to the average parameters obtained by the three operators (S-AUTOmean). All differences in mean cortical bone parameters between AUTO and S-AUTOmean were < 5%, except for lower AUTO cortical porosity of the radius (− 16%) and tibia (− 6%), and cortical pore volume (Ct.Po.V) of the radius (− 7%). The ICC of S-AUTOmean and AUTO was > 0.90 for all parameters, except for cortical pore diameter of the radius (0.79) and tibia (0.74) and Ct.Po.V of the tibia (0.89), without systematic errors on the Bland–Altman plots. The precision errors (RMS-CV%) of the radius parameters between S-AUTOmean and AUTO were comparable to those between the individual operators, whereas the tibia RMS-CV% between S-AUTOmean and AUTO were higher than those of the individual operators. Comparison of the three operators revealed clear inter-operator variability. This study suggests that the AUTO method can be used for cortical bone analysis in a cross-sectional study, but that the absolute values—particularly of the porosity-related parameters—will be lower.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)252-265
Number of pages14
JournalCalcified Tissue International
Volume103
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Sep 2018

Fingerprint

Tibia
Cross-Sectional Studies
Porosity
Cortical Bone

Keywords

  • Bone microarchitecture
  • Cortical bone analysis
  • Endocortical contour
  • High resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography

Cite this

de Waard, E.A.C. ; Sarodnik, C. ; Pennings, A. ; de Jong, J.J.A. ; Savelberg, H.H.C.M. ; van Geel, T.A. ; van der Kallen, C.J. ; Stehouwer, C.D.A. ; Schram, M.T. ; Schaper, N. ; Dagnelie, P.C. ; Geusens, P.P.M.M. ; Koster, A. ; van Rietbergen, B. ; van den Bergh, J.P.W. / Reliability of HR-pQCT derived cortical bone structural parameters when using uncorrected instead of corrected automatically generated endocortical contours in a cross-sectional study : the Maastricht study. In: Calcified Tissue International. 2018 ; Vol. 103, No. 3. pp. 252-265.
@article{771bce8dd5124991be8fc1fd17f63f9a,
title = "Reliability of HR-pQCT derived cortical bone structural parameters when using uncorrected instead of corrected automatically generated endocortical contours in a cross-sectional study: the Maastricht study",
abstract = "Most HR-pQCT studies examining cortical bone use an automatically generated endocortical contour (AUTO), which is manually corrected if it visually deviates from the apparent endocortical margin (semi-automatic method, S-AUTO). This technique may be prone to operator-related variability and is time consuming. We examined whether the AUTO instead of the S-AUTO method can be used for cortical bone analysis. Fifty scans of the distal radius and tibia from participants of The Maastricht Study were evaluated with AUTO, and subsequently with S-AUTO by three independent operators. AUTO cortical bone parameters were compared to the average parameters obtained by the three operators (S-AUTOmean). All differences in mean cortical bone parameters between AUTO and S-AUTOmean were < 5{\%}, except for lower AUTO cortical porosity of the radius (− 16{\%}) and tibia (− 6{\%}), and cortical pore volume (Ct.Po.V) of the radius (− 7{\%}). The ICC of S-AUTOmean and AUTO was > 0.90 for all parameters, except for cortical pore diameter of the radius (0.79) and tibia (0.74) and Ct.Po.V of the tibia (0.89), without systematic errors on the Bland–Altman plots. The precision errors (RMS-CV{\%}) of the radius parameters between S-AUTOmean and AUTO were comparable to those between the individual operators, whereas the tibia RMS-CV{\%} between S-AUTOmean and AUTO were higher than those of the individual operators. Comparison of the three operators revealed clear inter-operator variability. This study suggests that the AUTO method can be used for cortical bone analysis in a cross-sectional study, but that the absolute values—particularly of the porosity-related parameters—will be lower.",
keywords = "Bone microarchitecture, Cortical bone analysis, Endocortical contour, High resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography",
author = "{de Waard}, E.A.C. and C. Sarodnik and A. Pennings and {de Jong}, J.J.A. and H.H.C.M. Savelberg and {van Geel}, T.A. and {van der Kallen}, C.J. and C.D.A. Stehouwer and M.T. Schram and N. Schaper and P.C. Dagnelie and P.P.M.M. Geusens and A. Koster and {van Rietbergen}, B. and {van den Bergh}, J.P.W.",
year = "2018",
month = "9",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s00223-018-0416-2",
language = "English",
volume = "103",
pages = "252--265",
journal = "Calcified Tissue International",
issn = "0171-967X",
publisher = "Springer",
number = "3",

}

de Waard, EAC, Sarodnik, C, Pennings, A, de Jong, JJA, Savelberg, HHCM, van Geel, TA, van der Kallen, CJ, Stehouwer, CDA, Schram, MT, Schaper, N, Dagnelie, PC, Geusens, PPMM, Koster, A, van Rietbergen, B & van den Bergh, JPW 2018, 'Reliability of HR-pQCT derived cortical bone structural parameters when using uncorrected instead of corrected automatically generated endocortical contours in a cross-sectional study: the Maastricht study', Calcified Tissue International, vol. 103, no. 3, pp. 252-265. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00223-018-0416-2

Reliability of HR-pQCT derived cortical bone structural parameters when using uncorrected instead of corrected automatically generated endocortical contours in a cross-sectional study : the Maastricht study. / de Waard, E.A.C.; Sarodnik, C.; Pennings, A.; de Jong, J.J.A.; Savelberg, H.H.C.M.; van Geel, T.A.; van der Kallen, C.J.; Stehouwer, C.D.A.; Schram, M.T.; Schaper, N.; Dagnelie, P.C.; Geusens, P.P.M.M.; Koster, A.; van Rietbergen, B.; van den Bergh, J.P.W.

In: Calcified Tissue International, Vol. 103, No. 3, 01.09.2018, p. 252-265.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Reliability of HR-pQCT derived cortical bone structural parameters when using uncorrected instead of corrected automatically generated endocortical contours in a cross-sectional study

T2 - the Maastricht study

AU - de Waard, E.A.C.

AU - Sarodnik, C.

AU - Pennings, A.

AU - de Jong, J.J.A.

AU - Savelberg, H.H.C.M.

AU - van Geel, T.A.

AU - van der Kallen, C.J.

AU - Stehouwer, C.D.A.

AU - Schram, M.T.

AU - Schaper, N.

AU - Dagnelie, P.C.

AU - Geusens, P.P.M.M.

AU - Koster, A.

AU - van Rietbergen, B.

AU - van den Bergh, J.P.W.

PY - 2018/9/1

Y1 - 2018/9/1

N2 - Most HR-pQCT studies examining cortical bone use an automatically generated endocortical contour (AUTO), which is manually corrected if it visually deviates from the apparent endocortical margin (semi-automatic method, S-AUTO). This technique may be prone to operator-related variability and is time consuming. We examined whether the AUTO instead of the S-AUTO method can be used for cortical bone analysis. Fifty scans of the distal radius and tibia from participants of The Maastricht Study were evaluated with AUTO, and subsequently with S-AUTO by three independent operators. AUTO cortical bone parameters were compared to the average parameters obtained by the three operators (S-AUTOmean). All differences in mean cortical bone parameters between AUTO and S-AUTOmean were < 5%, except for lower AUTO cortical porosity of the radius (− 16%) and tibia (− 6%), and cortical pore volume (Ct.Po.V) of the radius (− 7%). The ICC of S-AUTOmean and AUTO was > 0.90 for all parameters, except for cortical pore diameter of the radius (0.79) and tibia (0.74) and Ct.Po.V of the tibia (0.89), without systematic errors on the Bland–Altman plots. The precision errors (RMS-CV%) of the radius parameters between S-AUTOmean and AUTO were comparable to those between the individual operators, whereas the tibia RMS-CV% between S-AUTOmean and AUTO were higher than those of the individual operators. Comparison of the three operators revealed clear inter-operator variability. This study suggests that the AUTO method can be used for cortical bone analysis in a cross-sectional study, but that the absolute values—particularly of the porosity-related parameters—will be lower.

AB - Most HR-pQCT studies examining cortical bone use an automatically generated endocortical contour (AUTO), which is manually corrected if it visually deviates from the apparent endocortical margin (semi-automatic method, S-AUTO). This technique may be prone to operator-related variability and is time consuming. We examined whether the AUTO instead of the S-AUTO method can be used for cortical bone analysis. Fifty scans of the distal radius and tibia from participants of The Maastricht Study were evaluated with AUTO, and subsequently with S-AUTO by three independent operators. AUTO cortical bone parameters were compared to the average parameters obtained by the three operators (S-AUTOmean). All differences in mean cortical bone parameters between AUTO and S-AUTOmean were < 5%, except for lower AUTO cortical porosity of the radius (− 16%) and tibia (− 6%), and cortical pore volume (Ct.Po.V) of the radius (− 7%). The ICC of S-AUTOmean and AUTO was > 0.90 for all parameters, except for cortical pore diameter of the radius (0.79) and tibia (0.74) and Ct.Po.V of the tibia (0.89), without systematic errors on the Bland–Altman plots. The precision errors (RMS-CV%) of the radius parameters between S-AUTOmean and AUTO were comparable to those between the individual operators, whereas the tibia RMS-CV% between S-AUTOmean and AUTO were higher than those of the individual operators. Comparison of the three operators revealed clear inter-operator variability. This study suggests that the AUTO method can be used for cortical bone analysis in a cross-sectional study, but that the absolute values—particularly of the porosity-related parameters—will be lower.

KW - Bone microarchitecture

KW - Cortical bone analysis

KW - Endocortical contour

KW - High resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85044533684&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s00223-018-0416-2

DO - 10.1007/s00223-018-0416-2

M3 - Article

C2 - 29594493

AN - SCOPUS:85044533684

VL - 103

SP - 252

EP - 265

JO - Calcified Tissue International

JF - Calcified Tissue International

SN - 0171-967X

IS - 3

ER -