Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Assessing osteoporosis in postmenopausal women: preliminary results using a novel lumbar spine phantom-based MRI scoring method

  • Magnetic Resonance Imaging
  • Published:
La radiologia medica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

To develop a novel magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) phantom for producing F-score (for fat) and W-score (for water) and to evaluate the performance of these scores in assessing osteoporosis and related vertebral fractures.

Materials and methods

First, a real-time phantom consisting of oil and water tubes was manufactured. Then, 30 female volunteers (age: 62.3 ± 6.3 years) underwent lumbar spine examination with MRI (using a novel phantom) and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), following ethical approval. MRI phantom-based F-score and W-score were defined by normalizing the vertebral signal intensities (SIs) by the oil and water SIs of the phantom on T1- and T2-weighted images, respectively. The diagnostic performances of the new scores for assessing osteoporosis and vertebral fractures were examined using receiver operating characteristic analysis and compared with DXA-measured areal bone mineral density (DXA-aBMD).

Results

The F-score and W-score were greater in the osteoporotic patients (3.93 and 2.29) than the non-osteoporotic subjects (3.05 and 1.79) and achieved AUC values of 0.85 and 0.74 (p < 0.05), respectively, when detecting osteoporosis. Similarly, F-score and W-score had greater values for the fracture patients (3.94 and 2.53) than the non-fracture subjects (3.14 and 1.69) and produced better AUC values (0.90 for W-score and 0.79 for F-score) compared to DXA-aBMD (AUC: 0.27, p < 0.05). In addition, the F-score and W-score had a strong correlation (r = 0.77; p < 0.001).

Conclusion

A novel real-time lumber spine MRI phantom was developed, based upon which newly defined F-score and W-score were able to detect osteoporosis and demonstrated an improved ability over DXA-aBMD in differentiating patients with vertebral fractures.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Compston JE, McClung MR, Leslie WD (2019) Osteoporosis. Lancet 393(10169):364–376

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. de Villiers TJ, Goldstein SR (2022) Bone health 2022: an update. Climacteric 25(1):1–3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Gao X et al (2023) Biomechanical MRI detects reduced bone strength in subjects with vertebral fractures. Bone 173:116810

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Dong Y et al (2022) Global incidence, prevalence, and disability of vertebral fractures: a systematic analysis of the global burden of disease study 2019. Spine J 22(5):857–868

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Ballane G et al (2017) Worldwide prevalence and incidence of osteoporotic vertebral fractures. Osteoporos Int 28(5):1531–1542

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Wang L et al (2021) Prevalence of osteoporosis and fracture in China: the China osteoporosis prevalence study. JAMA Netw Open 4(8):e2121106–e2121106

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Salari N et al (2021) Global prevalence of osteoporosis among the world older adults: a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis. J Orthop Surg Res 16(1):669

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Jain RK, Vokes T (2017) Dual-energy X-ray Absorptiometry. J Clin Densitom 20(3):291–303

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Sollmann N et al (2021) MRI-based quantitative osteoporosis imaging at the spine and femur. J Magn Reson Imaging 54(1):12–35

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Kadri A et al (2022) Clinical risk factor status in patients with vertebral fracture but normal bone mineral density. Spine J 22(10):1634–1641

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Messina C et al (2015) Prevalence and type of errors in dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry. Eur Radiol 25(5):1504–1511

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Link TM, Kazakia G (2020) Update on imaging-based measurement of bone mineral density and quality. Curr Rheumatol Rep 22(5):13

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Zou D et al (2019) The use of CT Hounsfield unit values to identify the undiagnosed spinal osteoporosis in patients with lumbar degenerative diseases. Eur Spine J 28(8):1758–1766

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Din RU, Cheng X, Yang H (2021) diagnostic role of magnetic resonance imaging in low back pain caused by vertebral endplate degeneration. J Magn Resonance Imaging 55:755

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Shraim BA et al (2021) The association between early MRI and length of disability in acute lower back pain: a systematic review and narrative synthesis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 22(1):983

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Liew I et al (2018) Requesting spinal MRIs effectively from primary care referrals. Eur Spine J 27(10):2436–2441

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Bandirali M et al (2015) A new diagnostic score to detect osteoporosis in patients undergoing lumbar spine MRI. Eur Radiol 25(10):2951–2959

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Shen W et al (2012) Relationship between MRI-measured bone marrow adipose tissue and hip and spine bone mineral density in African-American and Caucasian participants: the CARDIA study. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 97(4):1337–1346

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Li R et al (2022) MRI-based vertebral bone quality score effectively reflects bone quality in patients with osteoporotic vertebral compressive fractures. Eur Spine J 31(5):1131–1137

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Roch PJ et al (2023) Combination of vertebral bone quality scores from different magnetic resonance imaging sequences improves prognostic value for the estimation of osteoporosis. Spine J 23(2):305–311

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Saad MM et al (2019) Role of lumbar spine signal intensity measurement by MRI in the diagnosis of osteoporosis in post-menopausal women. Egypt J Radiol Nuclear Med 50(1):1–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Ehresman J et al. (2019) A novel MRI-based score assessing trabecular bone quality to predict vertebral compression fractures in patients with spinal metastasis. J Neurosurg Spine, 1–8.

  23. Huang W et al (2023) Use of MRI-based vertebral bone quality score (VBQ) of S1 body in bone mineral density assessment for patients with lumbar degenerative diseases. Eur Spine J 32:1553

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Hansen CB et al. (2019) Consideration of Cerebrospinal Fluid Intensity Variation in Diffusion Weighted MRI. Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng, 10948.

  25. Karampinos DC et al (2018) Quantitative MRI and spectroscopy of bone marrow. J Magn Reson Imaging 47(2):332–353

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Takatsu Y et al (2013) Study of skin markers for magnetic resonance imaging examinations. Jpn J Radiol Technol 69(3):264–270

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. de Bazelaire CM et al (2004) MR imaging relaxation times of abdominal and pelvic tissues measured in vivo at 3.0 T: preliminary results. Radiology 230(3):652–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Association NEM (2012) Determination of signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) in diagnostic magnetic resonance imaging. In: NEMA Standards Publication 2012, National Electrical Manufacturers Association: Virginia. pp 1–13

  29. Shen Y et al (2022) The global burden of osteoporosis, low bone mass, and its related fracture in 204 countries and territories, 1990–2019. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) 13:882241

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Li X, Schwartz AV (2020) MRI assessment of bone marrow composition in osteoporosis. Curr Osteoporos Rep 18(1):57–66

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Ali D et al (2022) The pathophysiology of osteoporosis in obesity and type 2 diabetes in aging women and men: the mechanisms and roles of increased bone marrow adiposity. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) 13:981487

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Beekman KM et al (2023) Osteoporosis and bone marrow adipose tissue. Curr Osteoporos Rep 21(1):45–55

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Jara HJ (2013) Theory of quantitative magnetic resonance imaging. World Scientific Publishing Company, Singapore

    Book  Google Scholar 

  34. Bani Hassan E et al (2019) Bone marrow adipose tissue quantification by imaging. Curr Osteoporos Rep 17(6):416–428

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Atashi F, Modarressi A, Pepper MS (2015) The role of reactive oxygen species in mesenchymal stem cell adipogenic and osteogenic differentiation: a review. Stem Cells Dev 24(10):1150–1163

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Liu X-G et al (2022) A superior articular process morphology of 5th lumbar vertebra prone to screws placement failure: an anatomical study of 299 patients. J Orthop Surg Res 17(1):505

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Johnson M et al (2022) Actual applications of magnetic resonance imaging in dentomaxillofacial region. Oral Radiol 38(1):17–28

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Yoshizawa E, Yamada A (2021) MRI-derived proton density fat fraction. J Med Ultrason 48(4):497–506

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Mauch J et al (2018) Review of the imaging features of benign osteoporotic and malignant vertebral compression fractures. Am Soc Neuroradiology 39(9):1584–1592

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Hammood SMA et al (2022) The role of Fast spin-echo T2-weighted and diffusion-weighted imaging for spine bone marrow changes evaluation in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. Egypt J Radiol Nuclear Med 53(1):158

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

Funding from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (12272017) and Beijing Natural Science Foundation (L232058) is acknowledged.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biomedical Engineering, College of Chemistry and Life Science, Beijing University of Technology, 100 Pingleyuan, Chaoyang District, Beijing, 100124, China

    Rahman Ud Din & Haisheng Yang

  2. Department of Imaging and Interventional Radiology, Lady Reading Hospital (LRH-MTI), Peshawar, Pakistan

    Tahira Nishtar

  3. Department of Radiology, Beijing Jishuitan Hospital, National Centre for Orthopaedics, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China

    Xiaoguang Cheng

Authors
  1. Rahman Ud Din
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tahira Nishtar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Xiaoguang Cheng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Haisheng Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Haisheng Yang.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies, whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.

Ethical approval

This research involving human participants was conducted as per the Declaration of Helsinki, and informed consent was taken.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

See Fig. 7.

Fig. 7
figure 7

a The positive correlation between the F-score and W-score indicates changes in fatty marrow and water-like content in the same direction. b The negative correlation between aBMD and F-score suggesting that an increase in fatty marrow (replacement) is associated with reduced bone mineral density

Full size image

See Table 5.

Table 5 Specifications of the MRI phantom materials and relevant safety measures
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Din, R.U., Nishtar, T., Cheng, X. et al. Assessing osteoporosis in postmenopausal women: preliminary results using a novel lumbar spine phantom-based MRI scoring method. Radiol med (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-024-01814-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-024-01814-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation