Vše

Co hledáte?

Vše
Projekty
Výsledky výzkumu
Subjekty

Rychlé hledání

  • Projekty podpořené TA ČR
  • Významné projekty
  • Projekty s nejvyšší státní podporou
  • Aktuálně běžící projekty

Chytré vyhledávání

  • Takto najdu konkrétní +slovo
  • Takto z výsledků -slovo zcela vynechám
  • “Takto můžu najít celou frázi”

Method Comparison for Bone Density in Multiple Myeloma Patients

Identifikátory výsledku

  • Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

    <a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F65269705%3A_____%2F24%3A00081381" target="_blank" >RIV/65269705:_____/24:00081381 - isvavai.cz</a>

  • Nalezeny alternativní kódy

    RIV/00216305:26220/24:PU152565 RIV/00843989:_____/24:E0111541

  • Výsledek na webu

    <a href="https://ojs.cvut.cz/ojs/index.php/CTJ/article/view/9984" target="_blank" >https://ojs.cvut.cz/ojs/index.php/CTJ/article/view/9984</a>

  • DOI - Digital Object Identifier

    <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.14311/CTJ.2024.3.04" target="_blank" >10.14311/CTJ.2024.3.04</a>

Alternativní jazyky

  • Jazyk výsledku

    angličtina

  • Název v původním jazyce

    Method Comparison for Bone Density in Multiple Myeloma Patients

  • Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

    Bone mineral density (BMD) is an important indicator of bone health, particularly in patients with conditions such as multiple myeloma. This study aims to compare three methodologies for quantifying BMD in vertebral regions affected by lytic lesions: two using data from conventional CT with different corrections for tissue composition, and one using data acquired on a dual-energy CT system. Method 1 is based on conventional CT with corrections using reference values for muscle and fat, Method 2 uses conventional CT with corrections based on the measured CT values of paraspinal muscle, and Method 3 is based on dual-energy CT. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for statistical comparison, as the dataset did not follow a normal distribution. The results indicated significant differences between Methods 1 and 2 for BMD in regions of interest (ROIs) within lytic lesions, while no significant differences were found for other comparisons in this group. For vertebrae affected by multiple myeloma, significant differences were found between Methods 1 and 2, and Methods 2 and 3, but not between Methods 1 and 3. In healthy vertebrae, a significant difference was found only between Methods 2 and 3. When all ROIs were combined, significant differences were found between Methods 1 and 2, and Methods 2 and 3, with no difference between Methods 1 and 3. Future research will focus on objectively assessing the accuracy of these methods by comparing their results with a calibration phantom.

  • Název v anglickém jazyce

    Method Comparison for Bone Density in Multiple Myeloma Patients

  • Popis výsledku anglicky

    Bone mineral density (BMD) is an important indicator of bone health, particularly in patients with conditions such as multiple myeloma. This study aims to compare three methodologies for quantifying BMD in vertebral regions affected by lytic lesions: two using data from conventional CT with different corrections for tissue composition, and one using data acquired on a dual-energy CT system. Method 1 is based on conventional CT with corrections using reference values for muscle and fat, Method 2 uses conventional CT with corrections based on the measured CT values of paraspinal muscle, and Method 3 is based on dual-energy CT. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for statistical comparison, as the dataset did not follow a normal distribution. The results indicated significant differences between Methods 1 and 2 for BMD in regions of interest (ROIs) within lytic lesions, while no significant differences were found for other comparisons in this group. For vertebrae affected by multiple myeloma, significant differences were found between Methods 1 and 2, and Methods 2 and 3, but not between Methods 1 and 3. In healthy vertebrae, a significant difference was found only between Methods 2 and 3. When all ROIs were combined, significant differences were found between Methods 1 and 2, and Methods 2 and 3, with no difference between Methods 1 and 3. Future research will focus on objectively assessing the accuracy of these methods by comparing their results with a calibration phantom.

Klasifikace

  • Druh

    J<sub>SC</sub> - Článek v periodiku v databázi SCOPUS

  • CEP obor

  • OECD FORD obor

    30224 - Radiology, nuclear medicine and medical imaging

Návaznosti výsledku

  • Projekt

  • Návaznosti

    I - Institucionalni podpora na dlouhodoby koncepcni rozvoj vyzkumne organizace

Ostatní

  • Rok uplatnění

    2024

  • Kód důvěrnosti údajů

    S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Údaje specifické pro druh výsledku

  • Název periodika

    Lékař a Technika

  • ISSN

    0301-5491

  • e-ISSN

  • Svazek periodika

    54

  • Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

    3

  • Stát vydavatele periodika

    CZ - Česká republika

  • Počet stran výsledku

    7

  • Strana od-do

    94-100

  • Kód UT WoS článku

  • EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

    2-s2.0-85213522580