PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

M B Chen

Publications and source records attributed to M B Chen.

7 recordsLinked to original sources

Vertebral morphometry: a comparison of long-term precision of morphometric X-ray absorptiometry and morphometric radiography in normal and osteoporotic subjects.

Vertebral morphometry, the quantification of vertebral body shape, has proved a useful tool in the identification and evaluation of osteoporotic vertebral deformities in both epidemiologic surveys and clinical trials. Although conventionally it has been performed on lateral radiographs of the thoracolumbar spine (morphometric radiography, MRX), it may now be accomplished on morphometric X-ray absorptiometry (MXA) scans, acquired on dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) machines. In this study the long-term precision of vertebral height measurement using MXA and MRX was directly compared. Initially 24 postmenopausal women were recruited (mean age 67+/-5.8 years): 12 normal subjects (group 1) and 12 with osteoporosis and known vertebral deformities (group 2). Each subject attended for a baseline visit at which they had a MXA examination and lateral thoracic and lumbar radiographs. Twenty-one subjects then returned 1.7+/-0.4 years later (10 subjects from group 1 and 11 from group 2) for a follow-up visit to repeat both the MXA scans and conventional radiographs. The baseline MXA scans and conventional radiographs were each analyzed quantitatively by two observers in a masked fashion, using a standard six-point method. The follow-up images were then analyzed by the same observers. The MRX observers were masked to the baseline analyses, while the MXA observers utilized the manufacturer's 'compare' facility. On all scans and radiographs anterior (Ha), mid (Hm) and posterior (Hp) vertebral heights were measured and wedge (Ha/Hp) and mid-wedge (Hm/Hp) ratios calculated for each vertebral body, ideally from T4 to L4. MRX analyzed 129 of the 130 available vertebrae in group 1 at both visits and 141 of the 143 available in group 2, while MXA analyzed 124 vertebrae in group 1 at both visits and 127 in group 2. Intra- and inter-observer precision errors, particularly in terms of coefficient of variation (CV%), were larger for MXA than for MRX in both normal subjects and those with vertebral deformities. For example, intra-observer precision errors for vertebral height measurement were 0.62 mm (2.9%) for MXA compared with 0.63 mm (2.2%) for MRX in group 1 (normal) subjects and 0.82 mm (4.2%) for MXA compared with 0.85 mm (3.3%) for MRX for group 2 (osteoporosis and vertebral deformities) subjects. Both MXA and MRX inter-observer precision was clearly poorer than the intra-observer precision, a problem associated with any morphometric technique. This was particularly noticeable for MXA; for example, precision of vertebral height measurement in group 1 subjects was 0.62 mm (2.9%) for intra-observer compared with 0.99 mm (4.6%) for inter-observer analyses. MXA and MRX intra- and inter-observer precision was significantly poorer for subjects with vertebral deformities compared with those without, with the CV% for subjects with vertebral deformity approximately 50% greater than that of normal subjects. For example, MRX intra-observer precision for the midwedge ratio was 2.6% for group 1 subjects compared with 3.8% for group 2 subjects. The precision of vertebral height measurement on deformed vertebrae of group 2 subjects was poorer than that for normal vertebrae in the same subjects using both MXA and MRX, as a result of increased variability in point placement. For example, MXA intra-observer precision (RMS SD) for the wedge ratio precision was 0.037 (3.9%) for normal vertebrae compared with 0.060 (6.6%) for deformed vertebrae. We conclude that MXA precision was generally poorer than MRX, although both techniques were adversely affected by the presence of vertebral deformities and the use of more than one observer. Although precision errors for both techniques were substantially smaller than the 20-25% reduction in vertebral height frequently proposed to identify incident deformities, the poorer precision of MXA may lead to an increased risk of erroneous classification of vertebrae as normal or deformed.

Absorptiometry, Photon↗

Evaluation of a gel-coupled quantitative ultrasound device for bone status assessment.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a new gel-coupled calcaneal quantitative ultrasound system, Osteospace (Medilink, Montpellier, France), which was designed to assess the status of bone in the calcaneus. METHODS: The study group consisted of 215 healthy white women aged 20 to 85 years and 51 white women aged 60 to 86 years with osteoporotic fractures. Fifty-two healthy women aged 50 to 85 years were randomly selected from the healthy cohort as the control group. All the women had calcaneal quantitative ultrasonic measurements. The women with osteoporotic fractures and the control group also had proximal femur and lumbar anteroposterior spine bone mineral density measurements using dual X-ray absorptiometry. Bone mineral density was also measured in a subgroup of 54 women at the calcaneus. RESULTS: There was a significant inverse correlation of broadband ultrasound attenuation and speed of sound with age (P < .001). Short-term measurement precision values expressed as coefficients of variation were 1.72% for broadband ultrasound attenuation and 0.64% for speed of sound, and standardized short-term precision values were 6.09% for broadband ultrasound attenuation and 3.87% for speed of sound. The correlations between the quantitative ultrasonic parameters and calcaneal bone mineral density were 0.69 (P = .0001) for broadband ultrasound attenuation and 0.45 (P = .0008) for speed of sound. Both quantitative ultrasonic parameters and all bone mineral density measurements of the hip and spine differed significantly between the control and osteoporotic fracture groups (P < .01). Age-, weight-, and height-adjusted odds ratios per SD decrease were as follows: broadband ultrasound attenuation, 1.79; speed of sound, 1.83; spine bone mineral density, 2.34; femoral neck bone mineral density, 1.69; and total hip bone mineral density, 1.85. The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve for quantitative ultrasound parameters and bone mineral density measurements were close, ranging from 0.75 to 0.80. CONCLUSIONS: This new quantitative ultrasound system can detect age- and menopause-related influences on skeletal status and can discriminate healthy women from those with osteoporotic fractures in a manner comparable with that of bone mineral density measurement by dual X-ray absorptiometry.

Adult↗

Morphometric X-ray absorptiometry and morphometric radiography of the spine: a comparison of prevalent vertebral deformity identification.

Prevalent vertebral deformities are associated with a substantially increased risk of subsequent vertebral and nonvertebral fractures. Knowledge of vertebral fracture status is an important component in the prediction of further fractures in patients with osteoporosis. This study reports a comparison of the quantitative identification of vertebral deformities on morphometric X-ray absorptiometry (MXA) scans and conventional radiographs (MRX) in 161 postmenopausal women (mean age +/- SD, 64 +/- 7.1 years) recruited from patients referred by their family doctor for bone density measurement (n = 119) and osteoporotic subjects with known vertebral deformities attending an osteoporosis clinic (n = 42). Each subject had MXA scans and MRXs of the thoracolumbar spine, to image the vertebrae from T4-L4, at a single visit. The scans and radiographs were analyzed by two trained observers using six points to quantify the shape of each vertebral body. From these points, three vertebral heights were measured: anterior, middle, and posterior. Vertebral deformities were identified using the algorithms proposed by Eastell and by McCloskey. Generally good to excellent agreement (per vertebra, kappa = 0.87-0.93; per subject, kappa = 0.81-0.91) was observed between the two algorithms used for quantitative vertebral deformity identification using MXA or MRX. More moderate agreement (per vertebra, kappa = 0.70-0.79; per subject, kappa = 0.67-0.75) was seen when comparing the same algorithm between MXA and MRX. Agreement between MXA and MRX for the McCloskey algorithm was better than for the Eastell algorithm, largely because of the lower number of false positives produced by the McCloskey methodology. Deformity identification by MXA was limited because of poor image quality, primarily in the upper thoracic spine. One in six MRX deformities were missed by MXA as they occurred in vertebrae not visualized sufficiently for analysis on the MXA scans. Deformity identification was poorer in the upper thoracic spine in analyzable vertebrae with a sensitivity of 50.0% for MXA in terms of MRX using the Eastell algorithm for the vertebral levels T4-T7, compared with 80.6% for L1-L4A. MXA proved to be more effective at identifying moderate to severe MRX deformities producing a sensitivity of 22.0% for MXA in terms of identifying MRX grade 1 deformities using the Eastell algorithm, compared with 81.6% for grade 2 deformities. Although MXA image quality is inferior to that of conventional radiographs, MXA has distinct advantages such as a substantially reduced effective dose to the patient and acquisition of a single image of the spine. MXA is a potentially useful, relatively fast, low-radiation technique to identify prevalent vertebral deformities, particularly moderate to severe deformities in the middle/lower thoracic and lumbar spine, in conjunction with morphometric radiography in some patients.

Absorptiometry, Photon↗

Morphometric X-ray absorptiometry and morphometric radiography of the spine: a comparison of analysis precision in normal and osteoporotic subjects.

Morphometric techniques, which use conventional lateral spine radiographs to quantify vertebral body shape (morphometric radiography, MRX), have proved a useful tool in the identification and evaluation of osteoporotic vertebral deformities. Recently a new method of acquiring the images required for vertebral morphometry using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry scanners (morphometric X-ray absorptiometry, MXA) has been developed. In this study we compare repeat analysis precision of vertebral height measurement using MXA and MRX. Twenty-four postmenopausal women were recruited (mean age 67 +/- 5.8 years): 12 normal subjects and 12 with osteoporosis and vertebral deformities. Each subject had a MXA scan and lateral thoracic and lumbar radiographs at a single appointment, which were each analyzed quantitatively in a masked fashion, using a standard 6-point method, twice by one observer and once by a second observer. Anterior (Ha), mid (Hm) and posterior (Hp) vertebral heights were measured and wedge (Ha/Hp) and mid-wedge (Hm/Hp) ratios calculated for each vertebral body. Intra- and interobserver precision were consistently poorer in MXA compared with MRX in both normal subjects and those with vertebral deformities, with MXA CV% generally at least 50% higher than corresponding values for MRX. For both MXA and MRX interobserver precision was clearly poorer than intraobserver precision, a problem associated with any morphometric technique. MXA intra- and interobserver precision were significantly poorer for subjects with vertebral deformities compared with those without, with a CV% for deformity subjects up to twice that of normal subjects. Conversely, MRX showed little or no obvious worsening of intra- or interobserver precision for deformity subjects. Comparison of MXA precision in the normal and deformed vertebrae of the deformity subjects demonstrated that the poorer precision in these subjects compared with normal subjects was the result of increased variability in point placement on the deformed vertebrae themselves. However, the precision for normal vertebrae in these subjects was also somewhat poorer than the precision in normal subjects. We conclude that MXA precision is generally poorer than that of MRX and that the presence of vertebral deformities has a more pronounced effect on MXA precision than on MRX precision.

Absorptiometry, Photon↗

Circulant orbitals and the electron-correlation problem.

Circulant, as well as canonical, orbitals are used in the different orbitals for different spins method for treating electron correlation. Circulant orbitals provide a theoretical justification for the use of a single parameter, even when the canonical orbitals have widely different orbital energies. Illustrative calculations on the ground state of the Be atom show the importance of choosing the correct "pairs" in the method. A two-parameter version of the conventional method gives 74% of the improvement obtained by a full configuration-interaction treatment using 20 linear parameters, while a one-parameter linear combination of two different coupling schemes of the circulant method gives approximately 61%. The latter wavefunction provides a compact description of the electron correlation.

Journal Article↗

Circulant orbitals for atoms and molecules.

Circulant orbitals varphi(n) for a closed-shell system are the orbitals obtained when the N canonical orthonormal Hartree-Fock orbitals lambda([unk]) are subjected to a unitary transformation which is the discrete Fourier transformation: varphi(n) = 1/ radicalN Sigma([unk])lambda([unk])omega((n-1)([unk]-1)), where omega = exp(2pii/N). Electron densities associated with the orbitals varphi(n) are each close to the average total electron density. The Fock matrix, diagonal for canonical orbitals, for circulant orbitals is a Hermitian circulant matrix, epsilon(m, m+q) = 1/N Sigma([unk])epsilon([unk])omega(q([unk]-1)), where the epsilon([unk]) are the canonical orbital energies. The states ;Fvarphi(n) are uniformly distributed on the surface of a sphere in Hilbert space.

Journal Article↗