ArticleBone2026
Can proton density-weighted MRI-based finite element models predict bone strength?
Article in Bone, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Hip fractures are a major clinical concern, and patient-specific finite element (FE) modeling of the proximal femur is increasingly used to assess bone strength and fracture risk at the hip. Although most patient-specific FE models rely on computed tomography (CT) imaging, CT requires relatively high doses of radiation, limiting its application. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based FE models present a radiation-free alternative that could expand clinical applicability. This study evaluated the predictive capability of proton density (PD)-weighted MRI-based FE models of the proximal femur under sideways fall. Cadaveric femora (n = 14) were imaged using MRI (n = 10) and CT (n = 14) to construct patient-specific FE models, and then mechanically tested to obtain experimental measures of stiffness and failure load. Existing relationships between image voxel intensity and tissue modulus were used; in the case of the MRI models, the relationship was based on a BV/TV-modulus equation previously applied in a T2-weighted MRI-FE study. Digital image correlation (DIC) was used to measure full-field strain distributions during mechanical testing to compare with FE predictions. Values of the whole-bone stiffness and failure load predicted by the MRI-based models showed poor agreement with experimentally measured values and paired CT-based FE predictions. However, when homogeneous material properties were assigned to the FE models, predicted stiffness and failure load no longer differed between MRI and CT. Notably, both MRI- and CT-based FE models qualitatively approximated the spatial distribution of principal strain patterns measured experimentally using DIC. These results indicate that the femoral geometry is captured well by PD-weighted MRI, but the appropriate material mapping relationship to use with this imaging sequence is unknown. Thus, future work should explore the relationship between PD-weighted MRI signal values and measures of modulus or density to advance an MRI-based FE framework for fracture risk assessment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.