Enhancing the Opportunistic Bone Status Assessment Using Radiomics Based on Dual-Energy Spectral CT Material Decomposition Images.

UNLABELLED

The dual-energy spectral CT (DEsCT) employs material decomposition (MD) technology, opening up novel avenues for the opportunistic assessment of bone status. Radiomics, a powerful tool for elucidating the structural and textural characteristics of bone, aids in the detection of mineral loss. Therefore, this study aims to compare the efficacy of bone status assessment using both bone density measurements and radiomics models derived from MD images and to further explore the clinical value of radiomics models.

METHODS

Retrospective data were collected from 307 patients who underwent both quantitative computed tomography (QCT) and full-abdomen DEsCT scans at our institution. Based on QCT measurements, patients were divided into three categories: normal bone mineral density (BMD), osteopenia, and osteoporosis. Using the abdominal DEsCT data, six types of MD images were reconstructed, including HAP (Water), HAP (Fat), Ca (Water), Ca (Fat), Fat (Ca), and Fat (HAP). Patients were randomly divided into a training cohort ( = 214) and a validation cohort (n = 93) at a ratio of 7:3. Focusing on the L1 to L3 vertebrae, density values from the six MD images were measured. Six density value models and six radiomics models were constructed using a random forest (RF) classifier. The performance of these models in assessing bone status was evaluated using the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, and the DeLong test was employed to compare performance differences between the models.

RESULTS

The macro-area under the curve (AUC) values for the density value models based on HAP (Water), HAP (Fat), Ca (Water), and Ca (Fat) MD images were 0.870, 0.870, 0.847, and 0.765, respectively, which outperformed those of Fat (Ca) (AUC = 0.623) and Fat (HAP) (AUC = 0.618) density value models. In the comparison of radiomics models, the trends of model performance were consistent with the density value models across the six MD images. However, the models based on HAP (Water), Ca (Water), HAP (Fat), Ca (Fat), Fat (Ca), and Fat (HAP) images exhibited superior performance than those of the density value models with the corresponding MD images, with values of 0.946, 0.941, 0.934, 0.926, 0.831, and 0.824, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Bone status assessment can be accurately conducted using density values from HAP (Water), HAP (Fat), Ca (Water), and Ca (Fat) MD images. However, radiomics models derived from MD images surpass traditional density measurement methods in evaluating bone status, highlighting their superior diagnostic potential.