Comparison of different microCT-based morphology assessment tools using human trabecular bone.
basic_science · Level V
Where this comes from
- Record sourced from PubMed, PMID 32455148.
- Also identified by DOI 10.1016/j.bonr.2020.100261 and PMC identifier 7235944.
- Licence recorded as CC BY.
- The licence permits redistribution, so the abstract is shown in full and the full text is available from the publisher.
Abstract
MicroCT-based morphological parameters are often used to quantify the structural properties of trabecular bone. Various software tools are available for calculating these parameters. Studies that examine the comparability of their results are rare. Four different software tools were used to analyse a set of 701 microCT images from human trabecular bone samples. Bone volume to total volume (<i>BV</i>/<i>TV</i>), bone surface (<i>BS</i>), trabecular thickness (<i>Tb</i>. <i>Th</i>.) and degree of anisotropy (<i>DA</i>) were evaluated. <i>BV</i>/<i>TV</i> shows very low difference (-0.18 ± 0.15%). The difference in <i>BS</i> could be reduced below 5% if artificial cut surfaces are not included. <i>Tb</i>. <i>Th</i>. and <i>Tb</i>. <i>Sp</i>. show differences of maximal -12% although the same theoretical background is used. <i>DA</i> is most critical with differences from 4.75 ± 3.70% (medtool vs. Scanco), over -38.61 ± 13.15% (BoneJ vs. Scanco), up to 80.52 ± 50.04% (medtool vs. BoneJ). Quantitative results should be considered with caution, especially when comparing different studies. Introducing standardization procedures and the disclosure of underlying algorithms and their respective implementations could improve this issue.