Role of endocortical contouring methods on precision of HR-pQCT-derived cortical micro-architecture in postmenopausal women and young adults

Abstract

Results suggest that AUTO and MOD endocortical contour methods provide comparable repeatability. In postmenopausal women, manual modification of endocortical contours led to generally higher cortical bone properties when compared to the automated method, while no between-method differences were observed in young adults.

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

“…1). This is in agreement with the study by Kawalilak et al, who also showed that the S-AUTO method resulted in a larger trabecularized cortex compared to the AUTO method [12]. Studies using AUTO contours instead of correct contours should therefore take into account that this will lead to lower absolute values of all parameters, except for the cortical vBMD which will be higher.…”

“…It may be expected that the AUTO method will also be reliable in premenopausal women because the endocortical border is often better recognizable in younger women [1]. Additionally, a study by Kawalilak et al showed that the reproducibility of cortical bone parameters when the AUTO contour is used is better in premenopausal than in postmenopausal women [12]. In contrast, recognition of the endocortical border is more difficult in older individuals, which may lead to problems with both the AUTO and S-AUTP method.…”

“…We were therefore not able to determine the short- and/or long-term reproducibility of the uncorrected and corrected contours. However, a previous study showed a high reproducibility of both the AUTO method and the corrected contours [12]. Third, the study was not designed for comparing the two methods for a clinical outcome such as fracture prediction or treatment of osteoporosis.…”

“…With this method, an endocortical contour is generated automatically first [10, 11], and the operator then manually modifies the generated contour when it visually deviates from the apparent endocortical margin. However, this method may be prone to operator-related variability and is time consuming (approximately 1 h per scan) [12]. This is particularly problematic in large cohort studies, where image analysis will be done by several operators and data from many participants need to be analyzed.…”

“…In an in vivo scan–rescan study by Kawalilak et al it was shown that use of the uncorrected endocortical contour instead of S-AUTO contour resulted in the same repeatability of cortical bone parameters [12]. However, it is currently unknown whether the uncorrected contour can reliably be used for the assessment of cortical bone parameters in cross-sectional studies.…”