A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

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

Phantomless calibration of CT scans for hip fracture risk prediction in silico: Comparison with phantom-based calibration. | LitMetric

Finite element models built from quantitative computed tomography images rely on element-wise mapping of material properties starting from Hounsfield Units (HU), which can be converted into mineral densities upon calibration. While calibration is preferably carried out by scanning a phantom with known-density components, conducting phantom-based calibration may not always be possible. In such cases, a phantomless procedure, where the scanned subject's tissues are used as a phantom, is an interesting alternative. The aim of this study was to compare a phantom-based and a phantomless calibration method on 41 postmenopausal women. The proposed phantomless calibration utilized air, adipose, and muscle tissues, with reference equivalent mineral density values of -797, -95, and 38 mg/cm3, extracted from a previously performed phantom-based calibration. A 9-slice volume of interest (VOI) centred between the femoral head and knee rotation centres was chosen. Reference HU values for air, adipose, and muscle tissues were extracted by identifying HU distribution peaks within the VOI, and patient-specific calibration was performed using linear regression. Comparison of FE models calibrated with the two methods showed average relative differences of 1.99% for Young's modulus1.30% for tensile and 1.34% for compressive principal strains. Excellent correlations (R2 > 0.99) were identified for superficial maximum tensile and minimum compressive strains. Maximum normalised root mean square relative error (RMSRE) values settled at 4.02% for Young's modulus, 2.99% for tensile, and 3.22% for compressive principal strains, respectively. The good agreement found between the two methods supports the adoption of the proposed methodology when phantomless calibration is needed.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11178222PMC
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0305474PLOS

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

phantomless calibration
16
phantom-based calibration
12
calibration
9
air adipose
8
adipose muscle
8
muscle tissues
8
compressive principal
8
principal strains
8
phantomless
5
calibration scans
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!