绝经后妇女皮质骨刚度的体内力学评估增强了DXA以外骨折的识别。

Brian C Clark, Todd M Manini, Janet E Simon, Leatha A Clark, Charalampos Lyssikatos, Stuart J Warden
{"title":"绝经后妇女皮质骨刚度的体内力学评估增强了DXA以外骨折的识别。","authors":"Brian C Clark, Todd M Manini, Janet E Simon, Leatha A Clark, Charalampos Lyssikatos, Stuart J Warden","doi":"10.1101/2025.08.28.25334655","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA)-derived areal bone mineral density (BMD) remains the clinical standard for assessing osteoporosis risk, yet it fails to identify over 75% of individuals who sustain fragility fractures. Direct in vivo mechanical assessment of cortical bone strength may address this diagnostic gap by capturing structural and material properties that govern whole-bone strength but are not reflected by BMD. We conducted a multicenter case-control study with cross-sectional assessment to compare ulna flexural rigidity, a biomechanical property correlated with whole-bone strength (R² ≈ 0.99), estimated using Cortical Bone Mechanics Technology (CBMT), with DXA-derived BMD for discriminating prior fragility fractures in postmenopausal women. A total of 372 women aged 50-80 years (109 with low-trauma fractures, 263 matched controls) were enrolled across four U.S. sites. Ulna flexural rigidity was assessed by dynamic vibrational analysis; BMD was measured at the spine, hip, and 1/3 radius. Women with prior fractures had significantly lower flexural rigidity than controls (absolute: 20.0 vs. 24.8 N·m²; 21% lower; weight-normalized: 0.29 vs. 0.36 N·m²/kg; 22% lower; both P < .001). CBMT demonstrated strong discriminatory accuracy (AUC = 0.80 normalized; 0.76 absolute) versus poor DXA performance (AUC ≤ 0.63) for discriminating all fragility fractures. In multivariable models including CBMT, DXA-derived BMD, age, and BMI, CBMT remained independently associated with fracture status, whereas BMD did not. Subgroup analyses showed CBMT retained strong performance in treatment-naïve women (AUC = 0.85) and in those with non-osteoporotic BMD (AUC = 0.80). Exploratory fracture-site analyses demonstrated that ulna EI discriminated upper and lower extremity fractures, including hip, whereas DXA-derived BMD generally showed modest or nonsignificant discrimination. These findings demonstrate that in vivo mechanical assessment of cortical bone rigidity provides clinically relevant information beyond areal BMD, including women not classified high risk. Direct in vivo assessment of cortical bone rigidity may enhance fracture risk stratification and enhance osteoporosis screening.</p><p><strong>Lay summary: </strong>Most people who break a bone from a simple fall do not meet the standard definition of osteoporosis based on a bone density scan (DXA). This means many at risk are not identified or treated. Our study tested a new, noninvasive technology that directly measures how strong a bone is by assessing how much it resists bending. We found that this measure, called flexural rigidity, more accurately identified women with past fractures than DXA did, even in women whose bone density was \"normal\". It also showed strong performance across different types of fractures, including hip fractures. Directly testing bone strength may help doctors better identify who needs treatment to prevent fractures.</p><p><strong>Abstract figure: </strong></p>","PeriodicalId":94281,"journal":{"name":"medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12407662/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"In Vivo Mechanical Assessment of Cortical Bone Rigidity Enhances Fracture Discrimination Beyond DXA in Postmenopausal Women.\",\"authors\":\"Brian C Clark, Todd M Manini, Janet E Simon, Leatha A Clark, Charalampos Lyssikatos, Stuart J Warden\",\"doi\":\"10.1101/2025.08.28.25334655\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA)-derived areal bone mineral density (BMD) remains the clinical standard for assessing osteoporosis risk, yet it fails to identify over 75% of individuals who sustain fragility fractures. Direct in vivo mechanical assessment of cortical bone strength may address this diagnostic gap by capturing structural and material properties that govern whole-bone strength but are not reflected by BMD. We conducted a multicenter case-control study with cross-sectional assessment to compare ulna flexural rigidity, a biomechanical property correlated with whole-bone strength (R² ≈ 0.99), estimated using Cortical Bone Mechanics Technology (CBMT), with DXA-derived BMD for discriminating prior fragility fractures in postmenopausal women. A total of 372 women aged 50-80 years (109 with low-trauma fractures, 263 matched controls) were enrolled across four U.S. sites. Ulna flexural rigidity was assessed by dynamic vibrational analysis; BMD was measured at the spine, hip, and 1/3 radius. Women with prior fractures had significantly lower flexural rigidity than controls (absolute: 20.0 vs. 24.8 N·m²; 21% lower; weight-normalized: 0.29 vs. 0.36 N·m²/kg; 22% lower; both P < .001). CBMT demonstrated strong discriminatory accuracy (AUC = 0.80 normalized; 0.76 absolute) versus poor DXA performance (AUC ≤ 0.63) for discriminating all fragility fractures. In multivariable models including CBMT, DXA-derived BMD, age, and BMI, CBMT remained independently associated with fracture status, whereas BMD did not. Subgroup analyses showed CBMT retained strong performance in treatment-naïve women (AUC = 0.85) and in those with non-osteoporotic BMD (AUC = 0.80). Exploratory fracture-site analyses demonstrated that ulna EI discriminated upper and lower extremity fractures, including hip, whereas DXA-derived BMD generally showed modest or nonsignificant discrimination. These findings demonstrate that in vivo mechanical assessment of cortical bone rigidity provides clinically relevant information beyond areal BMD, including women not classified high risk. Direct in vivo assessment of cortical bone rigidity may enhance fracture risk stratification and enhance osteoporosis screening.</p><p><strong>Lay summary: </strong>Most people who break a bone from a simple fall do not meet the standard definition of osteoporosis based on a bone density scan (DXA). This means many at risk are not identified or treated. Our study tested a new, noninvasive technology that directly measures how strong a bone is by assessing how much it resists bending. We found that this measure, called flexural rigidity, more accurately identified women with past fractures than DXA did, even in women whose bone density was \\\"normal\\\". It also showed strong performance across different types of fractures, including hip fractures. Directly testing bone strength may help doctors better identify who needs treatment to prevent fractures.</p><p><strong>Abstract figure: </strong></p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94281,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-10-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12407662/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.08.28.25334655\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.08.28.25334655","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

双能x线骨密度(DXA)衍生的面骨矿物质密度(BMD)仍然是评估骨质疏松症风险的临床标准,但它未能识别超过75%的脆弱性骨折患者。皮质骨强度的直接体内力学评估可以通过捕获控制全骨强度但不反映在骨密度上的结构和材料特性来解决这一诊断空白。我们进行了一项多中心病例对照研究,采用横断面评估来比较尺骨屈曲刚度,这是一种与全骨强度相关的生物力学特性(R²≈0.99),使用皮质骨力学技术(CBMT)估计,与dxa导出的骨密度相比较,用于区分绝经后妇女先前的脆性骨折。共有372名年龄在50-80岁之间的女性(109名患有低创伤性骨折,263名对照组)在美国的4个地点入组。采用动力振动分析评估尺骨抗弯刚度;测量脊柱、髋关节和1/3桡骨的骨密度。既往骨折的女性屈曲刚度明显低于对照组(绝对:20.0比24.8 N·m²;降低21%;体重标准化:0.29比0.36 N·m²/kg;降低22%;P均< 0.001)。CBMT表现出很强的区分准确性(AUC = 0.80归一化;0.76绝对),而DXA表现较差(AUC≤0.54)。在包括CBMT、dxa衍生BMD、年龄和BMI在内的多变量模型中,CBMT仍然与骨折状态独立相关,而BMD则没有。亚组分析显示,CBMT在treatment-naïve女性(AUC = 0.85)和非骨质疏松性骨密度(AUC = 0.80)中保持了良好的表现。探索性骨折部位分析表明,尺骨EI可以区分包括髋部在内的上肢和下肢骨折,而dxa衍生的BMD通常表现出较差或不显著的区分。这些发现表明,皮质骨硬度的体内力学评估提供了除区域骨密度以外的临床相关信息,包括未分类为高风险的女性。直接在体内评估皮质骨硬度可以加强骨折风险分层和加强骨质疏松症筛查。概要:大多数因单纯跌倒而骨折的人不符合骨密度扫描(DXA)对骨质疏松症的标准定义。这意味着许多有风险的人没有被发现或治疗。我们的研究测试了一种新的、无创的技术,通过评估骨头抵抗弯曲的程度来直接测量骨头的强度。我们发现,这种被称为弯曲刚度的测量方法比DXA更准确地识别出过去骨折的女性,即使在骨密度“正常”的女性中也是如此。它在包括髋部骨折在内的不同类型的骨折中也表现出了很强的性能。直接测试骨骼强度可以帮助医生更好地确定谁需要治疗以防止骨折。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
In Vivo Mechanical Assessment of Cortical Bone Rigidity Enhances Fracture Discrimination Beyond DXA in Postmenopausal Women.

Dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA)-derived areal bone mineral density (BMD) remains the clinical standard for assessing osteoporosis risk, yet it fails to identify over 75% of individuals who sustain fragility fractures. Direct in vivo mechanical assessment of cortical bone strength may address this diagnostic gap by capturing structural and material properties that govern whole-bone strength but are not reflected by BMD. We conducted a multicenter case-control study with cross-sectional assessment to compare ulna flexural rigidity, a biomechanical property correlated with whole-bone strength (R² ≈ 0.99), estimated using Cortical Bone Mechanics Technology (CBMT), with DXA-derived BMD for discriminating prior fragility fractures in postmenopausal women. A total of 372 women aged 50-80 years (109 with low-trauma fractures, 263 matched controls) were enrolled across four U.S. sites. Ulna flexural rigidity was assessed by dynamic vibrational analysis; BMD was measured at the spine, hip, and 1/3 radius. Women with prior fractures had significantly lower flexural rigidity than controls (absolute: 20.0 vs. 24.8 N·m²; 21% lower; weight-normalized: 0.29 vs. 0.36 N·m²/kg; 22% lower; both P < .001). CBMT demonstrated strong discriminatory accuracy (AUC = 0.80 normalized; 0.76 absolute) versus poor DXA performance (AUC ≤ 0.63) for discriminating all fragility fractures. In multivariable models including CBMT, DXA-derived BMD, age, and BMI, CBMT remained independently associated with fracture status, whereas BMD did not. Subgroup analyses showed CBMT retained strong performance in treatment-naïve women (AUC = 0.85) and in those with non-osteoporotic BMD (AUC = 0.80). Exploratory fracture-site analyses demonstrated that ulna EI discriminated upper and lower extremity fractures, including hip, whereas DXA-derived BMD generally showed modest or nonsignificant discrimination. These findings demonstrate that in vivo mechanical assessment of cortical bone rigidity provides clinically relevant information beyond areal BMD, including women not classified high risk. Direct in vivo assessment of cortical bone rigidity may enhance fracture risk stratification and enhance osteoporosis screening.

Lay summary: Most people who break a bone from a simple fall do not meet the standard definition of osteoporosis based on a bone density scan (DXA). This means many at risk are not identified or treated. Our study tested a new, noninvasive technology that directly measures how strong a bone is by assessing how much it resists bending. We found that this measure, called flexural rigidity, more accurately identified women with past fractures than DXA did, even in women whose bone density was "normal". It also showed strong performance across different types of fractures, including hip fractures. Directly testing bone strength may help doctors better identify who needs treatment to prevent fractures.

Abstract figure:

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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