Advertisement

Optimizing HR-pQCT workflow: a comparison of bias and precision error for quantitative bone analysis

  • D.E. Whittier
  • A.N. Mudryk
  • I.D. Vandergaag
  • L.A. Burt
  • S.K. BoydEmail author
Original Article
  • 34 Downloads

Abstract

Summary

Manual correction of automatically generated contours for high-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography can be time consuming and introduces precision error. However, bias related to the automated protocol is unknown. This study provides insight into error bias that is present when using uncorrected contours and inter-operator precision error based on operator training.

Introduction

High-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography workflow includes manually correcting contours generated by the manufacturer’s automated protocol. There is interest in minimizing corrections to save time and reduce precision error; however, bias related to the automated protocol is unknown. This study quantifies error bias when contours are uncorrected and identifies the impact of operator training on bias and precision error.

Methods

Forty-five radii and tibiae scans across a representative range of bone density were analyzed using the automated and manually corrected contours of three operators, with training ranging from beginner to expert, and compared with a “ground truth” to estimate bias. Inter-operator precision was measured across operators.

Results

The tibia had greater error bias than the radius when contours were uncorrected, with compartmental bone mineral densities and cortical microarchitecture having greatest biases, which could have significant implications for interpretation of studies using this skeletal site. Bias and precision error were greatest when contours were corrected by the beginner operator; however, when this operator was removed, bias was no longer present and inter-operator precision was between 0.01 and 3.74% for all parameters except cortical porosity.

Conclusion

These findings establish the need for manual correction and provide guidance on operator training needed to maximize workflow efficiency.

Keywords

Bone microarchitecture Bone mineral density Endocortical contour Error bias High-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography Precision 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

None.

Supplementary material

198_2019_5214_MOESM1_ESM.docx (3.8 mb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 3.83 mb)

References

  1. 1.
    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 26:50–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Burt LA, Liang Z, Sajobi TT, Hanley DA, Boyd SK (2016) Sex- and site-specific normative data curves for HR-pQCT. J Bone Miner Res 31:2041–2047CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dalzell N, Kaptoge S, Morris N, Berthier A, Koller B, Braak L, van Rietbergen B, Reeve J (2009) Bone micro-architecture and determinants of strength in the radius and tibia: age-related changes in a population-based study of normal adults measured with high-resolution pQCT. Osteoporos Int 20:1683–1694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Samelson EJ, Broe KE, Xu H, et al (2019) Cortical and trabecular bone microarchitecture as an independent predictor of incident fracture risk in older women and men in the Bone Microarchitecture International Consortium (BoMIC): a prospective study. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 7:34–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sornay-Rendu E, Boutroy S, Duboeuf F, Chapurlat RD (2017) Bone microarchitecture assessed by HR-pQCT as predictor of fracture risk in postmenopausal women: the OFELY study. J Bone Miner Res 32:1243–1251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sampaio-Barros MM, Alvarenga JC, Takayama L, Assad APL, Sampaio-Barros PD, Pereira RMR (2019) Distal radius and tibia bone microarchitecture impairment in female patients with diffuse systemic sclerosis. Osteoporos IntGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tsai JN, Nishiyama KK, Lin D, Yuan A, Lee H, Bouxsein ML, Leder BZ (2017) Effects of denosumab and teriparatide transitions on bone microarchitecture and estimated strength: the DATA-Switch HR-pQCT study. J Bone Miner Res 32:2001–2009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gabel L, Macdonald HM, Nettlefold L, McKay HA (2017) Physical activity, sedentary time, and bone strength from childhood to early adulthood: a mixed longitudinal HR-pQCT study. J Bone Miner Res 32:1525–1536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    de Waard EAC, Sarodnik C, Pennings A, de Jong JJA, Savelberg HHCM, van Geel T, van der Kallen C, Stehouwer CDA, Schram MT, Schaper N, Dagnelie PC, Geusens PPMM, Koster A, van Rietbergen B, van den Bergh J (2018) Reliability of HR-pQCT derived cortical bone structural parameters when using uncorrected instead of corrected automatically generated endocortical contours in a cross-sectional study: the Maastricht study. Calcif Tissue Int 103:252–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kawalilak CE, Johnston JD, Cooper DM, Olszynski WP, Kontulainen SA (2016) Role of endocortical contouring methods on precision of HR-pQCT-derived cortical micro-architecture in postmenopausal women and young adults. Osteoporos Int 27:789–796CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Warfield SK, Zou KH, Wells WM (2004) Simultaneous truth and performance level estimation (STAPLE): an algorithm for the validation of image segmentation. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 23:903–921CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    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 41:505–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pauchard Y, Liphardt AM, Macdonald HM, Hanley DA, Boyd SK (2012) Quality control for bone quality parameters affected by subject motion in high-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography. Bone 50:1304–1310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Manske SL, Zhu Y, Sandino C, Boyd SK (2015) Human trabecular bone microarchitecture can be assessed independently of density with second generation HR-pQCT. Bone 79:213–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Manske SL, Davison EM, Burt LA, Raymond DA, Boyd SK (2017) The estimation of second-generation HR-pQCT from first-generation HR-pQCT using in vivo cross-calibration. J Bone Miner Res 32:1514–1524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gluer CC, Blake G, Lu Y, Blunt BA, Jergas M, Genant HK (1995) Accurate assessment of precision errors: how to measure the reproducibility of bone densitometry techniques. Osteoporos Int 5:262–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chiba K, Okazaki N, Kurogi A, Isobe Y, Yonekura A, Tomita M, Osaki M (2018) Precision of second-generation high-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography: intra- and intertester reproducibilities and factors involved in the reproducibility of cortical porosity. J Clin Densitom 21:295–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Iglesias JE, Sabuncu MR (2015) Multi-atlas segmentation of biomedical images: a survey. Med Image Anal 24:205–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Elhalawani H, Elgohari B, Lin TA et al (2019) An in-silico quality assurance study of contouring target volumes in thoracic tumors within a cooperative group setting. Clin Transl Radiat Oncol 15:83–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gonzalez-Villa S, Oliver A, Huo Y, Llado X, Landman BA (2019) Brain structure segmentation in the presence of multiple sclerosis lesions. Neuroimage Clin 22:101709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kruser TJ, Bosch WR, Badiyan SN et al (2019) NRG brain tumor specialists consensus guidelines for glioblastoma contouring. J Neuro-Oncol 143:157–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gardner SJ, Wen N, Kim J et al (2015) Contouring variability of human- and deformable-generated contours in radiotherapy for prostate cancer. Phys Med Biol 60:4429–4447CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Osteoporosis Foundation and National Osteoporosis Foundation 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.McCaig Institute for Bone and Joint Health and Department of Radiology, Cumming School of MedicineUniversity of CalgaryCalgaryCanada

Personalised recommendations