Back

Validation of 3D-DXA-Derived Proximal Femur Measurements Against QCT Across International Clinical Cohorts

Bracco, M. I.; Black, D. M.; Sone, T.; del Rio, L.; Di Gregorio, S.; Malouf, J.; Humbert, L.

2026-04-22 radiology and imaging
10.64898/2026.04.22.26351450 medRxiv
Show abstract

Three-dimensional dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (3D-DXA) reconstructs proximal femur models from standard scans to estimate cortical and trabecular bone parameters. The aim of this study was to evaluate 3D-DXA against quantitative computed tomography (QCT) across independent international cohorts. The study included 537 subjects from four cohorts: an adult population from Spain, a postmenopausal female population from the United States, an osteoarthrosis population and a young population, both from Japan. Subjects underwent both 3D-DXA and QCT imaging. Accuracy was assessed using linear regression and Bland-Altman analysis to evaluate systematic and random errors. 3D-DXA parameters strongly correlated with QCT across all datasets, with correlation coefficients between 0.82 and 0.97. Random errors were consistent across cohorts and ranged between 16.55 and 19.91 mg/cm3 for integral volumetric bone mineral density (vBMD), between 13.52 and 18.47 mg/cm3 for trabecular vBMD, and between 9.13 and 11.37 mg/cm2 for cortical surface bone mineral density (sBMD). Systematic errors ranged between -14.84 and 4.50 mg/cm3 for integral vBMD, between -8.31 and 14.41 mg/cm3 for trabecular vBMD, and between -5.58 and 3.21 mg/cm2 for cortical sBMD. The variations in systematic errors were likely attributable to differences in QCT acquisition protocols. Overall, these results demonstrate consistent agreement between 3D-DXA and QCT across sex, age, ethnicity, geographic regions, and clinical profiles. Taken together, these findings support the use of 3D-DXA as an accurate, non-invasive, and clinically accessible technology for advanced assessment of the cortical and trabecular compartments of the proximal femur.

Published in Bone (predicted rank #1) · training set

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.