Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 144
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 144
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 212
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1002
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3142
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Second-generation high-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography (HR-pQCT) provides the highest resolution in vivo to assess bone density and microarchitecture in 3D. Although strong agreement of most outcomes measured with first- (XCTI) and second- (XCTII) generation HR-pQCT has been demonstrated, the ability to use the two systems interchangeably is unknown. From in vivo measurements, we determined the limits of estimating XCTII data from XCTI scans conducted in vivo and whether that estimation can be improved by linear cross-calibration equations. These data are crucial as the research field transitions to the new technology. Our study design established cross-calibration equations by scanning 62 individuals on both systems on the same day and then tested those cross-calibrations on the same cohort 6 months later so that estimated (denoted as XCTII*) and "true" XCTII parameters could be compared. We calculated the generalized least-significant change (GLSC) for those predictions. There was strong agreement between both systems for density (R > 0.94), macroarchitecture (R > 0.95), and most microarchitecture outcomes with the exception of trabecular thickness (Tb.Th, R = 0.51 to 0.67). Linear regression equations largely eliminated the systematic error between XCTII and XCTII* and produced a good estimation of most outcomes, with individual error estimates between 0.2% and 3.4%, with the exception of Tt.BMD. Between-system GLSC was similar to within-XCTI LSC (eg, 8.3 to 41.9 mg HA/cm for density outcomes). We found that differences between outcomes assessed with XCTI and XCTII can be largely eliminated by cross-calibration. Tb.Th is poorly estimated because it is measured more accurately by XCTII than XCTI. It may be possible to use cross-calibration for most outcomes when both scanner generations are used for multicenter and longitudinal studies. © 2017 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jbmr.3128 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!