Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39443535›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2024

Automated deep learning-based bone mineral density assessment for opportunistic osteoporosis screening using various CT protocols with multi-vendor scanners.

Heejun Park, Woo Young Kang, Ok Hee Woo, Jemyoung Lee, Zepa Yang, Sangseok Oh

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Heejun ParkDepartment of Radiology, Guro Hospital, Korea University Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Woo Young KangDepartment of Radiology, Guro Hospital, Korea University Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea. wyoung1106@gmail.com.
Ok Hee WooDepartment of Radiology, Guro Hospital, Korea University Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Jemyoung LeeClariPi Inc, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Zepa YangDepartment of Radiology, Guro Hospital, Korea University Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Sangseok OhDepartment of Radiology, Guro Hospital, Korea University Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea.

Funding

the Ministry of Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs) and Startups (MSS, Korea) NTIS #1425142385the Ministry of Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs) and Startups (MSS, Korea) S2844049The Ministry of Trade, Industry & Energy (MOTIE, Korea) 20010927The Ministry of Trade, Industry & Energy (MOTIE, Korea) NTIS#1415169348
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This retrospective study examined the diagnostic efficacy of automated deep learning-based bone mineral density (DL-BMD) measurements for osteoporosis screening using 422 CT datasets from four vendors in two medical centers, encompassing 159 chest, 156 abdominal, and 107 lumbar spine datasets. DL-BMD values on L1 and L2 vertebral bodies were compared with manual BMD (m-BMD) measurements using Pearson's correlation and intraclass correlation coefficients. Strong agreement was found between m-BMD and DL-BMD in total CT scans (r = 0.953, p < 0.001). The diagnostic performance of DL-BMD was assessed using receiver operating characteristic analysis for osteoporosis and low BMD by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) and m-BMD. Compared to DXA, DL-BMD demonstrated an AUC of 0.790 (95% CI 0.733-0.839) for low BMD and 0.769 (95% CI 0.710-0.820) for osteoporosis, with sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of 80.8% (95% CI 74.2-86.3%), 56.3% (95% CI 43.4-68.6%), and 74.3% (95% CI 68.3-79.7%) for low BMD and 65.4% (95% CI 50.9-78.0%), 70.9% (95% CI 63.8-77.3%), and 69.7% (95% CI 63.5-75.4%) for osteoporosis, respectively. Compared to m-BMD, DL-BMD showed an AUC of 0.983 (95% CI 0.973-0.993) for low BMD and 0.972 (95% CI 0.958-0.987) for osteoporosis, with sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of 97.3% (95% CI 94.5-98.9%), 85.2% (95% CI 78.8-90.3%), and 92.7% (95% CI 89.7-95.0%) for low BMD and 94.4% (95% CI 88.3-97.9%), 89.5% (95% CI 85.6-92.7%), and 90.8% (95% CI 87.6-93.4%) for osteoporosis, respectively. The DL-based method can provide accurate and reliable BMD assessments across diverse CT protocols and scanners.

Indexed as

Absorptiometry, PhotonBone DensityDeep LearningOsteoporosisTomography, X-Ray ComputedAdultAgedFemaleHumansLumbar VertebraeMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesROC CurveBone densityDeep learningOsteoporosisTomographyX-Ray computed

Identifiers

PMID39443535
PMCPMC11499650

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.