Osteoporosis International

, Volume 24, Issue 5, pp 1733–1740 | Cite as

Women with previous fragility fractures can be classified based on bone microarchitecture and finite element analysis measured with HR-pQCT

  • K. K. Nishiyama
  • H. M. Macdonald
  • D. A. Hanley
  • S. K. Boyd
Original Article

Abstract

Summary

High-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography (HR-pQCT) measurements of distal radius and tibia bone microarchitecture and finite element (FE) estimates of bone strength performed well at classifying postmenopausal women with and without previous fracture. The HR-pQCT measurements outperformed dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) at classifying forearm fractures and fractures at other skeletal sites.

Introduction

Areal bone mineral density (aBMD) is the primary measurement used to assess osteoporosis and fracture risk; however, it does not take into account bone microarchitecture, which also contributes to bone strength. Thus, our objective was to determine if bone microarchitecture measured with HR-pQCT and FE estimates of bone strength could classify women with and without low-trauma fractures.

Methods

We used HR-pQCT to assess bone microarchitecture at the distal radius and tibia in 44 postmenopausal women with a history of low-trauma fracture and 88 age-matched controls from the Calgary cohort of the Canadian Multicentre Osteoporosis Study (CaMos) study. We estimated bone strength using FE analysis and simulated distal radius aBMD from the HR-pQCT scans. Femoral neck (FN) and lumbar spine (LS) aBMD were measured with DXA. We used support vector machines (SVM) and a tenfold cross-validation to classify the fracture cases and controls and to determine accuracy.

Results

The combination of HR-pQCT measures of microarchitecture and FE estimates of bone strength had the highest area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve of 0.82 when classifying forearm fractures compared to an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.71 from DXA-derived aBMD of the forearm and 0.63 from FN and spine DXA. For all fracture types, FE estimates of bone strength at the forearm alone resulted in an AUC of 0.69.

Conclusion

Models based on HR-pQCT measurements of bone microarchitecture and estimates of bone strength performed better than DXA-derived aBMD at classifying women with and without prior fracture. In future, these models may improve prediction of individuals at risk of low-trauma fracture.

KEYWORDS

Bone microarchitecture Finite element analysis Fracture HR-pQCT Support vector machines 

References

  1. 1.
    Black DM, Cummings SR, Genant HK, Nevitt MC, Palermo L, Browner W (1992) Axial and appendicular bone density predict fractures in older women. J Bone Miner Res 7:633–638PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Schuit CE, van der Klift M, Weel A, de Laet C, Burger H, Seeman E, Hofman A, Uitterlinden G, van Leeuwen J, Pols AP (2004) Fracture incidence and association with bone mineral density in elderly men and women: the Rotterdam Study. Bone 34:195–202PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    van der Linden JC, Weinans H (2007) Effects of microarchitecture on bone strength. Curr Osteoporos Rep 5:56–61PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sornay-Rendu E, Boutroy S, Munoz F, Delmas PD (2007) Alterations of cortical and trabecular architecture are associated with fractures in postmenopausal women, partially independent of decreased BMD measured by DXA: the OFELY study. J Bone Miner Res 22:425–433PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Boutroy S, Bouxsein ML, Munoz F, Delmas PD (2005) In vivo assessment of trabecular bone microarchitecture by high-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 90:6508–6515PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    MacNeil JA, Boyd SK (2007) Accuracy of high-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography for measurement of bone quality. Med Eng Phys 29:1096–1105PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    MacNeil JA, Boyd SK (2008) Bone strength at the distal radius can be estimated from high-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography and the finite element method. Bone 42:1203–1213PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Melton LJ, Riggs BL, van Lenthe GH, Achenbach SJ, Müller R, Bouxsein ML, Amin S, Atkinson EJ, Khosla S (2007) Contribution of in vivo structural measurements and load/strength ratios to the determination of forearm fracture risk in postmenopausal women. J Bone Miner Res 22:1442–1448PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Boutroy S, Van Rietbergen B, Sornay-Rendu E, Munoz F, Bouxsein ML, Delmas PD (2008) Finite element analysis based on in vivo HR-pQCT images of the distal radius is associated with wrist fracture in postmenopausal women. J Bone Miner Res 23:392–399PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Vilayphiou N, Boutroy S, Sornay-Rendu E, Van Rietbergen B, Munoz F, Delmas PD, Chapurlat R (2010) Finite element analysis performed on radius and tibia HR-pQCT images and fragility fractures at all sites in postmenopausal women. Bone 46:1030–1037PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Vico L, Zouch M, Amirouche A, Frère D, Laroche N, Koller B, Laib A, Thomas T, Alexandre C (2008) High-resolution pQCT analysis at the distal radius and tibia discriminates patients with recent wrist and femoral neck fractures. J Bone Miner Res 23:1741–1750PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Atkinson EJ, Therneau TM, Melton LJ, Camp JJ, Achenbach SJ, Amin S and Khosla S (2012) Assessing fracture risk using gradient boosting machine (GBM) models. J Bone Miner ResGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Macdonald HM, Nishiyama KK, Kang J, Hanley DA, Boyd SK (2011) Age-related patterns of trabecular and cortical bone loss differ between sexes and skeletal sites: a population-based HR-pQCT study. J Bone Miner Res 26:50–62PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nishiyama KK, Macdonald HM, Buie HR, Hanley DA, Boyd SK (2010) Postmenopausal women with osteopenia have higher cortical porosity and thinner cortices at the distal radius and tibia than women with normal aBMD: an in vivo HR-pQCT study. J Bone Miner Res 25:882–890PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kreiger N, Tenenhouse A, Joseph L, MacKenzie T, Poliquin S, Brown J, Prior J, Rittmaster R (1999) The Canadian Multicentre Osteoporosis Study (CaMos): background, rationale, methods. Can J Aging 18:376–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Berger C, Langsetmo L, Joseph L, Hanley DA, Davison KS, Josse RG, Prior JC, Kreiger N, Tenenhouse A, Goltzman D (2009) Association between change in BMD and fragility fracture in women and men. J Bone Miner Res 24:361–370PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Laib A, Häuselmann HJ, Rüegsegger P (1998) In vivo high resolution 3D-QCT of the human forearm. Technol Health Care 6:329–337PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sekhon K, Kazakia GJ, Burghardt AJ, Hermannsson B, Majumdar S (2009) Accuracy of volumetric bone mineral density measurement in high-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography. Bone 45:473–479PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    MacNeil JA, Boyd SK (2008) Improved reproducibility of high-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography for measurement of bone quality. Med Eng Phys 30:792–799PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Buie HR, Campbell GM, Klinck RJ, MacNeil JA, Boyd SK (2007) Automatic segmentation of cortical and trabecular compartments based on a dual threshold technique for in vivo micro-CT bone analysis. Bone 41:505–515PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Burghardt AJ, Kazakia GJ, Link TM, Majumdar S (2009) Automated simulation of areal bone mineral density assessment in the distal radius from high-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography. Osteoporos Int 20:2017–2024PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Müller R, Rüegsegger P (1995) Three-dimensional finite element modelling of non-invasively assessed trabecular bone structures. Med Eng Phys 17:126–133PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Van Rietbergen B, Weinans H, Huiskes R, Odgaard A (1995) A new method to determine trabecular bone elastic properties and loading using micromechanical finite-element models. J Biomech 28:69–81PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Chiu J, Robinovitch SN (1998) Prediction of upper extremity impact forces during falls on the outstretched hand. J Biomech 31:1169–1176PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hayes WC, Piazza SJ, Zysset PK (1991) Biomechanics of fracture risk prediction of the hip and spine by quantitative computed tomography. Radiol Clin North Am 29:1–18PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Keaveny TM, Bouxsein ML (2008) Theoretical implications of the biomechanical fracture threshold. J Bone Miner Res 23:1541–1547PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Vapnik V Estimation of dependences based on empirical data: Springer series in statistics. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hall M, Frank E, Holmes G, Pfahringer B, Reutemann P, Witten IH (2009) The WEKA data mining software: an update. SIGKDD Explorations 11Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Cortes C, Vapnik V (1995) Support-vector networks. Mach Learn 20:273–297Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Valyon J, Horváth G (2003) A weighted generalized LS-SVM. Period Polytech Electr Eng 47:229–251Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Suykens JAK, De Brabanter J, Lukas L, Vandewalle J (2002) Weighted least squares support vector machines: robustness and sparse approximation. Neurocomputing 48:85–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Harvey N, Dennison E, Cooper C, ASBMR (2009) Chapter 38. Epidemiology of osteoporotic fractures. In: Rosen JC (ed) Primer on the metabolic bone diseases and disorders of mineral metabolism, 7th edn. American Society for Bone and Mineral Research, Washington, pp 197–203Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Osteoporosis Foundation and National Osteoporosis Foundation 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • K. K. Nishiyama
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • H. M. Macdonald
    • 4
    • 5
    • 6
  • D. A. Hanley
    • 3
    • 7
  • S. K. Boyd
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 7
    • 8
  1. 1.Schulich School of EngineeringUniversity of CalgaryCalgaryCanada
  2. 2.Roger Jackson Centre for Health and Wellness ResearchUniversity of CalgaryCalgaryCanada
  3. 3.McCaig Institute for Bone and Joint HealthCalgaryCanada
  4. 4.Department of OrthopedicsUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada
  5. 5.Child and Family Research InstituteVancouverCanada
  6. 6.Centre for Hip Health and MobilityVancouverCanada
  7. 7.Faculty of MedicineUniversity of CalgaryCalgaryCanada
  8. 8.Department of Mechanical and Manufacturing EngineeringUniversity of CalgaryN.W. CalgaryCanada

Personalised recommendations