Journal of Bone and Mineral Metabolism

, Volume 37, Issue 1, pp 161–170 | Cite as

Does Trabecular Bone Score (TBS) improve the predictive ability of FRAX® for major osteoporotic fractures according to the Japanese Population-Based Osteoporosis (JPOS) cohort study?

  • Junko TamakiEmail author
  • Masayuki Iki
  • Yuho Sato
  • Renaud Winzenrieth
  • Etsuko Kajita
  • Sadanobu Kagamimori
  • For the JPOS Study Group
Original Article


This study examined whether bone microarchitecture determined by Trabecular Bone Score (TBS) is associated with the risk of major osteoporotic fractures independent of FRAX® in Japanese women. Participants included 1541 women aged ≥ 40 at baseline. Major osteoporotic fractures during a 10-year follow-up period were documented by the Japanese Population-based Osteoporosis Cohort Study. TBS and areal bone mineral density (aBMD) were calculated for the same spinal regions at baseline. To compare the predictive ability of FRAX® model when used alone versus in combination with TBS, Akaike information criterion (AIC), the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), net reclassification improvement (NRI), and integrated discrimination improvement (IDI) were calculated. We identified 67 events of major osteoporotic fractures. The skeletal sites of the first fracture event were as follows: hip (11), vertebrae (13), radius (42), and humerus (1). The model incorporating FRAX® [1.35 (95% CI 1.09–1.67) for 1 standard deviation (SD) increase] with TBS [1.46 (95% CI 1.08–1.98) for 1 SD decrease] demonstrated better fit compared to a model consisting of FRAX alone (AIC 528.6 vs 532.7). NRI values for classification accuracy showed significant improvements in the FRAX® and TBS model, as compared to FRAX® alone [0.299 (95% CI 0.056-0.541)]. However, there were no significant differences in AUC or IDI between these models. The TBS score is associated with a risk of major osteoporotic fracture independent of FRAX® score obtained with or without BMD values among Japanese women during a 10-year follow-up period.


Trabecular Bone Score (TBS) FRAX® Japanese women Prospective cohort study Major osteoporotic fracture 



This study was conducted by the JPOS Study Group, consisting of Hideo Yoneshima (the head representative of the Study Group, ex-chairman of the Board of Directors, Medical Corporation Shuuwakai), Fumiaki Marumo (Chairman of the Study Group, Professor Emeritus, Tokyo Medical and Dental University), Toshihisa Matsuzaki (Co-Chairman of the Study Group, Institute of Comprehensive Community Care), Tomoharu Matsukura (Kanazawa University), Takashi Yamagami (Hokuriku Health Service Association), and Yoshiko Kagawa (the former president of Kagawa Nutrition University), along with the authors of this manuscript. Financial support for the baseline survey was provided by the Japan Milk Promotion Board and the Japan Dairy Council. Follow-up surveys were supported by Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research (B #10470114, 1998–2000; B #14370147, 2002–2003; B #18390201, 2006-2008; C#18590619, 2006-9; B# 23390180, 2011-13; and C#23590824, 2011-13) from the Japanese Society for the Promotion of Science; a grant (2000–2002) from the Research Society for Metabolic Bone Diseases, Japan; and a Grand-in-Aid to study Milk Nutrition (2006) from the Japan Dairy Association. The authors wish to express special thanks to the personnel of the health departments of Miyako-jima City, Sanuki City, and Nishi-Aizu Town for their excellent support of the study. Finally, the authors would like to express their thanks to personnel from SRL, Tokyo, Japan; Toyo Medic, Osaka, Japan; and Toyukai Medical Corporation, Tokyo, Japan, for their technical assistance with the surveys.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Renaud Winzenrieth was a senior scientist at Medimaps at the time of the study. Junko Tamaki, Masayuki Iki, Yuho Sato, Etsuko Kajita, Sadanobu Kagamimori declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Kanis JA, Oden A, Johnell O, Johansson H, De Laet C et al (2007) The use of clinical risk factors enhances the performance of BMD in the prediction of hip and osteoporotic fractures in men and women. Osteoporos Int 18:1033–1046CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kanis JA; on behalf of the World Health Organization Scientific Group (2007) Assessment of osteoporosis at the primary health-care level. Technical Report. World Health Organization Collaborating Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield, UK, pp 189–217.
  3. 3.
    Kanis JA (2002) Diagnosis of osteoporosis and assessment of fracture risk. Lancet 359:1929–1936CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hans D, Barthe N, Boutroy S, Pothuaud L, Winzenrieth R, Krieg MA (2011) Correlations between trabecular bone score, measured using anteroposterior dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry acquisition, and 3-dimensional parameters of bone microarchitecture: an experimental study on human cadaver vertebrae. J Clin Densitom 14:302–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Winzenrieth R, Michelet F, Hans D (2012) Three-dimensional (3D) Microarchitecture correlations with 2D projection image gray-level variations assessed by Trabecular Bone Score using high-resolution computed tomographic acquisitions: effects of resolution and noise. J Clin Densitomet 16:287–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Roux JP, Wegrzyn J, Boutroy S, Bouxsein ML, Hans D, Chapurlat R (2013) The predictive value of trabecular bone score (TBS) on whole lumbar vertebrae mechanics: an ex vivo study. Osteoporos Int 24:2455–2460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Iki M, Tamaki J, Kadowaki E, Sato Y, Dongmei N, Winzenrieth R, Kagamimori S, Kagawa Y, Yoneshima H (2014) Trabecular bone score (TBS) predicts vertebral fractures in Japanese women over 10 years independently of bone density and prevalent vertebral deformity: the Japanese Population-based Osteoporosis (JPOS) Cohort Study. J Bone Miner Res 29:399–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    McCloskey EV, Odén A, Harvey NC, Leslie WD, Hans D et al (2016) A meta-analysis of trabecular bone score in fracture risk prediction and its relationship to FRAX. J Bone Miner Res 31:940–948CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Iki M, Kagamimori S, Kagawa Y, Matsuzaki T, Yoneshima H, Marumo F (2001) Bone mineral density of the spine, hip and distal forearm in representative samples of the Japanese female population: Japanese Population-Based Osteoporosis (JPOS) Study. Osteoporps Int 12:529–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Iki M, Morita A, Ikeda Y, Sato Y, Akiba T, Matsumoto T, Nishino H, Kagamimori S, Kagawa Y, Yoneshima H, JPOS Study Group (2006) Biochemical markers of bone turnover predict bone loss in perimenopausal women but not in postmenopausal women-the Japanese Population-based Osteoporosis (JPOS) cohort study. Osteoporos Int 17:1086–1095CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Iki M, Tamaki J, Sato Y, Morita A, Ikeda Y, Kajita E, Nishino H, Akiba T, Matsumoto T, Kagamimori S, Kagawa Y, Yoneshima H, Matsukura T, Yamagami T, Kitagawa J, the JPOS Study Group (2014) Cohort profile: the Japanese Population-based Osteoporosis (JPOS) cohort study. Int J Epidemiol 44:405–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    McCloskey EV, Spector TD, Eyres KS, Fern ED, O’Rourke N, Vasikaran S, Kanis JA (1993) The assessment of vertebral deformity: a method for use in population studies and clinical trials. Osteoporos Int 3:138–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fujiwara S, Nakamura T, Orimo H, Hosoi T, Gorai I, Oden A, Johansson H, Kanis JA (2008) Development and application of a Japanese model of the WHO fracture risk assessment tool (FRAX™). Osteoporos Int 19:429–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL (1988) Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics 44:837–845CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Akaike H (1973) Information theory and an extension of the maximum likelihood principle. In: Petrov BN, Csaki F (eds) Proceedings of the second international symposium on information theory. Akademiai Kiado, Budapest, pp 267–281Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sakamoto Y, Ishiguro M, Kitagawa G (1986) Akaike information criterion statistics. D. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp 56–85Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pencina MJ, D’Agostino RB Sr, D’Agostino RB Jr, Vasan RS (2008) Evaluating the added predictive ability of a new marker: from area under the ROC curve to reclassification and beyond. Stat Med 27:157–172 (discussion 207-212) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kennedy KF, Pencina MJ (2010) A SAS® macro to compute added predictive ability of new markers predicting a dichotomous outcome. In: South Eeast SAS Users Group Annual Meeting Proceedings 2010,
  19. 19.
    Iki M, Fujita Y, Tamaki J, Kouda K, Yura A, Sato Y, Moon JS, Winzenrieth R, Okamoto N, Kurumatani N (2015) Trabecular bone score may improve FRAX® prediction accuracy for major osteoporotic fractures in elderly Japanese men: the Fujiwara-kyo Osteoporosis Risk in Men (FORMEN) Cohort Study. Osteoporos Int 26:1841–1848CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Su Y, Leung J, Hans D, Lamy O, Kwok T (2017) The added value of trabecular bone score to FRAX® to predict major osteoporotic fractures for clinical use in Chinese older people: the Mr. OS and Ms. OS cohort study in Hong Kong. Osteoporos Int 28:111–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Palvanen M, Kannus P, Parkkari J, Pitkäjärvi T, Pasanen M, Vuori I, Järvinen M (2000) The injury mechanisms of osteoporotic upper extremity fractures among older adults: a controlled study of 287 consecutive patients and their 108 controls. Osteoporos Int 11:822–831CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pepe MS, Janes H, Longton G, Leisenring W, Newcomb P (2004) Limitations of the odds ratio in gauging the performance of a diagnostic, prognostic, or screening marker. Am J Epidemiol 159:882–890CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Leslie WD, Krieg MA, Hans D, Program Manitoba Bone Density (2013) Clinical factors associated with Trabecular Bone Score. J Clin Densitom 16:374–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Orimo H, Yaegashi Y, Hosoi T, Fukushima Y, Onoda T, Hashimoto T, Sakata K (2016) Hip fracture incidence in Japan: estimates of new patients in 2012 and 25-year trends. Osteoporos Int 27:1777–1784CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ismail AA, O’Neill TW, Cockerill W, Finn JD, Cannata JB, Hoszowski K, Johnell O, Matthis C, Raspe H, Raspe A, Reeve J, Silman AJ (2000) Validity of self-report of fractures: results from a prospective study in men and women across Europe. EPOS Study Group. European Prospective Osteoporosis Study Group. Osteoporos Int 11:248–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Siggeirsdottir K, Aspelund T, Sigurdsson G, Mogensen B, Chang M, Jonsdottir B, Eiriksdottir G, Launer LJ, Harris TB, Jonsson BY, Gudnason V (2007) Inaccuracy in self-report of fractures may underestimate association with health outcomes when compared with medical record based fracture registry. Eur J Epidemiol 22:631–639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hagino H, Katagiri H, Okano T, Yamamoto K, Teshima R (2005) Increasing incidence of hip fracture in Tottori Prefecture, Japan: trend from 1986 to 2001. Osteoporos Int 16:1963–1968CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan (1998) National Health and Nutrition Survey in Japan, 1996. Dai-Ichi shyuppan, Tokyo, p 52Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rea JA, Chen MB, Li J, Blake GM, Steiger P, Genant HK, Fogelman I (2000) Morphometric X-ray absorptiometry and morphometric radiography of the spine: a comparison of prevalent vertebral deformity identification. J Bone Miner Res 15:564–574CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Japanese Society for Bone and Mineral Research and Springer Japan KK, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Junko Tamaki
    • 1
    Email author
  • Masayuki Iki
    • 2
  • Yuho Sato
    • 3
  • Renaud Winzenrieth
    • 4
  • Etsuko Kajita
    • 5
  • Sadanobu Kagamimori
    • 6
  • For the JPOS Study Group
  1. 1.Department of Hygiene and Public HealthOsaka Medical CollegeTakatsukiJapan
  2. 2.Department of Public HealthKindai University Faculty of MedicineOsaka-SayamaJapan
  3. 3.Department of Human LifeJin-ai UniversityEchizenJapan
  4. 4.R&D Department, MedimapsMerignacFrance
  5. 5.Department of Public Health and Home Nursing, Graduate School of Medical SciencesNagoya UniversityNagoyaJapan
  6. 6.University of ToyamaToyamaJapan

Personalised recommendations