Comparison of DXA hip structural analysis with volumetric QCT.
Comparison of DXA hip structural analysis with volumetric QCT.
复制标题
DXA 髋部结构分析与体积 QCT 的比较。
DOI：
10.1016/j.jocd.2008.10.004
复制
发表时间：
2009
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Beck,ThomasJ
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Beck,ThomasJ
本文旨在比较两个版本的HSA分析与几何来自CT扫描。HSA®的一个版本是我最初开发的版本（约翰霍普金斯大学或JHU HSA）（1），并将其与基于类似原理的GE扫描仪上的软件实现进行比较，该软件最初由Yoshikowa等人开发（2）（GE HSA）。这项工作最初是在2006年的美国骨骼和矿物质研究协会会议上以口头形式提出的。在那次会议上，Prevrahl博士介绍的结果显示，使用GE HSA测量的股骨颈几何形状与使用Lang博士的QCT软件测量的股骨颈几何形状之间存在适度的相关性，但JHU HSA与GE HSA或QCT几何形状之间没有明显的相关性。在此重复了该结果，并声明“......约翰霍普金斯大学HSA程序针对该特定器械的版本存在缺陷，因此我们不介绍或讨论其结果。”让我开始说，我们没有任何问题，与任何合法的比较与JHU HSA，无论调查结果，但发表评论，抹黑软件，显然是不工作是坦率的不专业和无偿的。如果我们的软件是“有缺陷的”，为什么它甚至被提及？正如我们反复向Prevrahl博士及其同事解释的那样，我们的HSA方法需要适当校准的软组织减去图像，其中像素值以骨矿物质质量的g/cm 2表示。我们可以从扫描仪存档的数据中获得该图像，但扫描仪制造商必须提供其专有格式和制作矿物图像所需的任何必要信息。多年来，我们为早期的Lunar DPA扫描仪、部分Norland型号（现在的库珀Surgical）和所有型号的Hologic扫描仪开发了转换实用程序。我们还为GE/Lunar DXA型号的某些版本开发了转换，包括DPX的各种版本和Prevrahl博士研究中使用的Prodigy的早期版本。所有图像转换都是使用制造商根据保密协议提供的信息开发的。Prodigy转换于2002-2003年与GE合作开发。此后不久，通用电气公司作出商业决定，停止与我们的合作，并开发几何软件的基础上，Yoshikowa计划。GE的数据格式在某个时候发生了变化;这显然是扫描仪制造商根据其需求决定的特权，我们并不认为GE需要在他们这样做时通知我们。
The paper purports to compare two versions of HSA analyses with geometry derived from CT scans. One version of HSA® is the one I had originally developed (Johns Hopkins University or JHU HSA)(1) and it was compared to an implementation on GE scanners of software based on similar principles and originally developed by Yoshikowa et al (2)(GE HSA). The work was originally presented in oral form at the American Society of Bone and Mineral Research meeting in 2006. At that meeting Dr. Prevrahl presented results showing that there were modest correlations between femoral neck measurements using GE HSA and the femoral neck geometry measured by Dr. Lang’s QCT software, but no significant correlations were evident between JHU HSA and with either GE HSA or the QCT geometry. The result was repeated here with the statement that ‘… the version of the Johns Hopkins HSA program for this particular device was flawed, and we therefore do not present or discuss its results.’Let me begin by saying that we have no problem with any legitimate comparisons with JHU HSA, regardless of findings, but to make remarks to discredit software that is clearly not working is frankly unprofessional and gratuitous. If our software is ‘flawed’why it is even mentioned?As we repeatedly explained to Dr. Prevrahl and colleagues, our HSA method requires a properly calibrated soft-tissue-subtracted image where pixel values are expressed in g/cm2 of bone mineral mass. We can derive that image from the data archived by the scanner provided that the scanner manufacturer provides access to their proprietary format and any necessary information needed to produce the mineral image. Over the years we have developed conversion utilities for early Lunar DPA scanners, some Norland models (now Cooper Surgical), all models of Hologic scanners. We also developed conversions for some versions of GE/Lunar DXA models including various versions of the DPX and early versions of the Prodigy used in Dr. Prevrahl’s study. All image conversions were developed using information provided by the manufacturer under non-disclosure agreements. The Prodigy conversion was developed in 2002–2003 in with cooperation with GE. Soon thereafter GE made the business decision to discontinue cooperation with us and to develop geometry software based on the Yoshikowa program. At some point the GE data format was altered; this is clearly the prerogative of the scanner manufacturer to do as their needs dictate and we are under no delusion that GE is required to inform us when they do‥ We were nevertheless surprised to