3D–DXA cortical and trabecular parameters: agreement between hologic densitometers in clinical practice

IF 2.5 4区 医学 Q4 ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM
Journal of Clinical Densitometry Pub Date : 2026-10-01 Epub Date: 2026-09-26 DOI:10.1016/j.jocd.2026.101749
Marta I Bracco, Jorge Malouf, Laurent Maïmoun, Xavier Nogues, Jean Paul Roux, François DuBoeuf, Ludovic Humbert
{"title":"3D–DXA cortical and trabecular parameters: agreement between hologic densitometers in clinical practice","authors":"Marta I Bracco,&nbsp;Jorge Malouf,&nbsp;Laurent Maïmoun,&nbsp;Xavier Nogues,&nbsp;Jean Paul Roux,&nbsp;François DuBoeuf,&nbsp;Ludovic Humbert","doi":"10.1016/j.jocd.2026.101749","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div><em>Background:</em> Three–dimensional dual–energy X–ray absorptiometry (DXA) reconstructs three–dimensional maps of the proximal femur’s density distribution from standard hip DXA scans, enabling the estimation of trabecular and cortical bone parameters. The aim of this study was to assess the agreement of these three–dimensional cortical and trabecular femur parameters across different series and models of Hologic densitometers.</div><div><em>Methodology:</em> The study cohort was composed of 103 women and men recruited from four clinical centers in Spain and France. Subjects had duplicated hip DXA scans using different Hologic scanners from the Horizon, Discovery, and QDR 4500 series. Analyses were performed using 3D–Shaper software. Inter–scanner agreement was evaluated using Deming regression and Bland–Altman analysis. A multiple linear regression was used to investigate the impact of patients’ age and BMI on the magnitude of inter–scanner differences. Furthermore, the clinical impact of inter–scanner variability was assessed by evaluating the agreement in the classification of DXA and 3D–Shaper bone parameters as normal, low, or very low density.</div><div><em>Results:</em> The parameters demonstrated strong inter–device agreement across all clinical centers and scanner models, with coefficients of determination greater than 0.91. Absolute biases were less than 2.5 mg/cm<sup>3</sup> for integral volumetric (v) bone mineral density (BMD), less than 2.9 mg/cm<sup>3</sup> for trabecular vBMD, and less than 1.7 mg/cm<sup>2</sup> for cortical surface (s) BMD. No statistically significant bias was found between parameters obtained from different scanners. Furthermore, a high classification agreement was found for all parameters, with cortical sBMD reaching the agreement level of standard DXA areal (a) BMD.</div><div><em>Conclusions:</em> Standard and three–dimensional hip bone parameters showed excellent agreement across the evaluated Hologic scanners, with inter–scanner differences rarely affecting density classification. Further studies are needed to confirm generalizability to other Hologic devices.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":50240,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Densitometry","volume":"29 4","pages":"Article 101749"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Densitometry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1094695026000831","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/9/26 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Three–dimensional dual–energy X–ray absorptiometry (DXA) reconstructs three–dimensional maps of the proximal femur’s density distribution from standard hip DXA scans, enabling the estimation of trabecular and cortical bone parameters. The aim of this study was to assess the agreement of these three–dimensional cortical and trabecular femur parameters across different series and models of Hologic densitometers.
Methodology: The study cohort was composed of 103 women and men recruited from four clinical centers in Spain and France. Subjects had duplicated hip DXA scans using different Hologic scanners from the Horizon, Discovery, and QDR 4500 series. Analyses were performed using 3D–Shaper software. Inter–scanner agreement was evaluated using Deming regression and Bland–Altman analysis. A multiple linear regression was used to investigate the impact of patients’ age and BMI on the magnitude of inter–scanner differences. Furthermore, the clinical impact of inter–scanner variability was assessed by evaluating the agreement in the classification of DXA and 3D–Shaper bone parameters as normal, low, or very low density.
Results: The parameters demonstrated strong inter–device agreement across all clinical centers and scanner models, with coefficients of determination greater than 0.91. Absolute biases were less than 2.5 mg/cm3 for integral volumetric (v) bone mineral density (BMD), less than 2.9 mg/cm3 for trabecular vBMD, and less than 1.7 mg/cm2 for cortical surface (s) BMD. No statistically significant bias was found between parameters obtained from different scanners. Furthermore, a high classification agreement was found for all parameters, with cortical sBMD reaching the agreement level of standard DXA areal (a) BMD.
Conclusions: Standard and three–dimensional hip bone parameters showed excellent agreement across the evaluated Hologic scanners, with inter–scanner differences rarely affecting density classification. Further studies are needed to confirm generalizability to other Hologic devices.
3D-DXA皮质和小梁参数:血流密度计在临床实践中的一致性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Clinical Densitometry
Journal of Clinical Densitometry 医学-内分泌学与代谢
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
8.00%
发文量
92
审稿时长
90 days
期刊介绍: The Journal is committed to serving ISCD''s mission - the education of heterogenous physician specialties and technologists who are involved in the clinical assessment of skeletal health. The focus of JCD is bone mass measurement, including epidemiology of bone mass, how drugs and diseases alter bone mass, new techniques and quality assurance in bone mass imaging technologies, and bone mass health/economics. Combining high quality research and review articles with sound, practice-oriented advice, JCD meets the diverse diagnostic and management needs of radiologists, endocrinologists, nephrologists, rheumatologists, gynecologists, family physicians, internists, and technologists whose patients require diagnostic clinical densitometry for therapeutic management.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书