Automated quantitative morphometry of vertebral heights on spinal radiographs: comparison of a clinical workflow tool with standard 6-point morphometry
A workflow tool for measurements of vertebral heights on lateral spine radiographs based on automated placements of 6 points per vertebra was evaluated. The tool helps to standardize point placement among operators. Its success rate is very good in normal vertebrae but lower in vertebrae with more severe fractures. Manual corrections were required in 192 of 1257 analyzed vertebrae.
To evaluate a new workflow tool (SA) for the automated measurements of vertebral heights on lateral spine radiographs.
Lateral radiographs from 200 postmenopausal women were evaluated at two visits. Genant’s semi-quantitative fracture assessment (SQ) and manual quantitative morphometry (QM) results were available from prior analyses. Vertebral heights from point placements using SA were compared with manual 6-point placement QM. Differences were quantified as RMS coefficient of variations (rmsCV) and standard deviations (rmsSD).
Results and conclusions
SA required manual corrections in 192 of 1257 vertebrae. SA heights were larger than QM ones by 2.2–3.6%. Correlations (r2 > 0.92) between SA and QM were very high. Differences between QM and SA were higher for fractured (SQ = 2; rmsCV% 14.5%) than for unfractured vertebrae (rmsCV% 4.2–4.7%). rmsCV% for QM varied between 3 and 6% and for SA between 2.5 and 7.5%. For SA, highest rmsCV% was obtained for T4 and L4. Manual correction mostly affected the end vertebrae T4 and L4. SA helps to standardize point placement among operators. The algorithm success rate is very good in normal vertebrae but lower in vertebrae with more severe fractures, which are of greater clinical interest but are more readily recognized without morphometric measurements.
KeywordsActive shape and appearance models Automated quantitative morphometry Vertebral fracture
Preliminary results have been presented at the ASBMR 2010 and 2011 and at the ESCEO-IOF 2010 and 2011.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflicts of interest
- 8.Foundation IO. Europe guidelines https://www.iofbonehealth.org/europe-guidelines
- 9.Australia TRACoGPaO (2017) Osteoporosis prevention, diagnosis and management in postmenopausal women and men over 50 years of age. 2nd edn. http://www.racgp.org.au/your-practice/guidelines/musculoskeletal/osteoporosis/
- 10.Densitometry ISfC. 2015 ISCD official positions—adult. http://www.iscd.org/official-positions/2015-iscd-official-positions-adult/
- 21.Genant HK, Jergas M, Palermo L, Nevitt M, Valentin RS, Black D, Cummings SR (1996) Comparison of semiquantitative visual and quantitative morphometric assessment of prevalent and incident vertebral fractures in osteoporosis. The Study of Osteoporotic Fractures Research Group. J Bone Miner Res 11(7):984–996CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 23.Genant HK, Wu CY, van Kuijk C, Nevitt M (1993) Vertebral fracture assessment using a semi-quantitative technique. J Bone Miner Res:81137–81148Google Scholar
- 24.Boonen S, Adachi JD, Man Z, Cummings SR, Lippuner K, Torring O, Gallagher JC, Farrerons J, Wang A, Franchimont N, San Martin J, Grauer A, McClung M (2011) Treatment with denosumab reduces the incidence of new vertebral and hip fractures in postmenopausal women at high risk. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 96(6):1727–1736CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 25.Eriksen EF, Lyles KW, Colon-Emeric CS, Pieper CF, Magaziner JS, Adachi JD, Hyldstrup L, Recknor C, Nordsletten L, Lavecchia C, Hu H, Boonen S, Mesenbrink P (2009) Antifracture efficacy and reduction of mortality in relation to timing of the first dose of zoledronic acid after hip fracture. J Bone Miner Res 24(7):1308–1313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 26.Ettinger B, Black DM, Mitlak BH, Knickerbocker RK, Nickelsen T, Genant HK, Christiansen C, Delmas PD, Zanchetta JR, Stakkestad J, Gluer CC, Krueger K, Cohen FJ, Eckert S, Ensrud KE, Avioli LV, Lips P, Cummings SR (1999) Reduction of vertebral fracture risk in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis treated with raloxifene: results from a 3-year randomized clinical trial. Multiple Outcomes of Raloxifene Evaluation (MORE) Investigators. Jama 282(7):637–645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 27.Quandt SA, Thompson DE, Schneider DL, Nevitt MC, Black DM, Fracture Intervention Trial Research G (2005) Effect of alendronate on vertebral fracture risk in women with bone mineral density T scores of − 1.6 to − 2.5 at the femoral neck: the Fracture Intervention Trial. Mayo Clin Proc 80(3):343–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 30.Cawthon PM, Haslam J, Fullman R, Peters KW, Black D, Ensrud KE, Cummings SR, Orwoll ES, Barrett-Connor E, Marshall L, Steiger P, Schousboe JT, Osteoporotic Fractures in Men Research G (2014) Methods and reliability of radiographic vertebral fracture detection in older men: the osteoporotic fractures in men study. Bone:67152–67155Google Scholar
- 34.van der Velde R, Ozanian T, Dumitrescu B, Haslam J, Staal J, Brett A, van den Bergh J, Geusens P (2015) Performance of statistical models of shape and appearance for semiautomatic segmentations of spinal vertebrae T4–L4 on digitized vertebral fracture assessment images. Spine J 15(6):1248–1254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 36.Black DM, Delmas PD, Eastell R, Reid IR, Boonen S, Cauley JA, Cosman F, Lakatos P, Leung PC, Man Z, Mautalen C, Mesenbrink P, Hu H, Caminis J, Tong K, Rosario-Jansen T, Krasnow J, Hue TF, Sellmeyer D, Eriksen EF, Cummings SR, Trial HPF (2007) Once-yearly zoledronic acid for treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. N Engl J Med 356(18):1809–1822CrossRefGoogle Scholar