The DOI matches its Crossref record.
A comparison of morphometric definitions of vertebral fracture
Abstract
To compare the accuracy of several approaches for defining prevalent vertebral fractures from measurements of vertebral dimensions (morphometry), we measured the lateral dimensions of vertebral bodies of 115 normal premenopausal and 100 postmenopausal women. Of the postmenopausal women two observers agreed that 49 had definite vertebral fractures and 38 were definitely normal. Using these classifications as an independent reference, women were then classified as fractured or normal by several definitions based on vertebral morphometry. No morphometric definition of vertebral fracture agreed perfectly with the consensus classifications. In general, definitions that involved combinations of measurements of anterior (Ha), middle (Hm), and posterior (Hp) vertebral height classified women more accurately than did definitions based on a single measurement or ratio. The Ha/Hp ratio produced many false positives unless it was adjusted for normal variations in the shapes of different vertebral bodies. Definitions of fracture based on a > 15% reduction in heights or ratios had higher sensitivity but more false positives than definitions that used a more stringent (>20%) criterion. All morphometric definitions of vertebral fracture separated the postmenopausal women into two groups (fractured and normal) that had significantly (P < 0.001) different mean spine bone density by quantitative computed tomography. Definitions that had the lowest rates of false positives also produced the largest differences in bone density between those defined as fractured and those defined as normal.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Vertebral fracture assessment using a semiquantitative technique
Genant, H. K., Wu, C. Y., van Kuijk, C., & Nevitt, M. C. (1993) · Journal of Bone and Mineral Research · doi:10.1002/jbmr.5650080915 · Cited by 3,691
Self-citationSchurch, M.-A., Rizzoli, R., Slosman, D., Vadas, L., Vergnaud, P., & Bonjour, J.-P. (1998) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-128-10-199805150-00002 · Cited by 572
Prevalence and incidence of vertebral deformities
Melton, L. J., Lane, A. W., Cooper, C., Eastell, R., O'Fallon, W. M., & Riggs, B. L. (1993) · Osteoporosis International · doi:10.1007/bf01623271 · Cited by 517
Soluble RANKL and risk of nontraumatic fracture.
Schett, G. (2004) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.291.9.1108 · Cited by 146
Metadata
- Authors
- Smith-Bindman, R., Cummings, S. R., Steiger, P., & Genant, H. K.
- Venue
- Journal of Bone and Mineral Research
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1991-01-01
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 25-34
- ISSN
- 0884-0431 (ISSN-L)
- 1523-4681
- OpenAlex
- W2109643048
- Cited by
- 221
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 15.75
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A comparison of morphometric definitions of vertebral fracture. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/jbmr.5650060106
- The paper
- Smith-Bindman, R., Cummings, S. R., Steiger, P., & Genant, H. K. (1991). A comparison of morphometric definitions of vertebral fracture. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbmr.5650060106
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.