These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

104 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10870897)

  • 1. Short term in vivo precision of proximal femoral finite element modeling.
    Cody DD; Hou FJ; Divine GW; Fyhrie DP
    Ann Biomed Eng; 2000 Apr; 28(4):408-14. PubMed ID: 10870897
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Femoral strength is better predicted by finite element models than QCT and DXA.
    Cody DD; Gross GJ; Hou FJ; Spencer HJ; Goldstein SA; Fyhrie DP
    J Biomech; 1999 Oct; 32(10):1013-20. PubMed ID: 10476839
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. The predictive ability of a QCT-FE model of the proximal femoral stiffness under multiple load cases is strongly influenced by experimental uncertainties.
    Amini M; Reisinger A; Synek A; Hirtler L; Pahr D
    J Mech Behav Biomed Mater; 2023 Mar; 139():105664. PubMed ID: 36657193
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Mapping anisotropy improves QCT-based finite element estimation of hip strength in pooled stance and side-fall load configurations.
    Panyasantisuk J; Dall'Ara E; Pretterklieber M; Pahr DH; Zysset PK
    Med Eng Phys; 2018 Sep; 59():36-42. PubMed ID: 30131112
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Quantitative computed tomography-based finite element analysis predictions of femoral strength and stiffness depend on computed tomography settings.
    Dragomir-Daescu D; Salas C; Uthamaraj S; Rossman T
    J Biomech; 2015 Jan; 48(1):153-61. PubMed ID: 25442008
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Mapping anisotropy of the proximal femur for enhanced image based finite element analysis.
    Enns-Bray WS; Owoc JS; Nishiyama KK; Boyd SK
    J Biomech; 2014 Oct; 47(13):3272-8. PubMed ID: 25219361
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Comparison of non-invasive assessments of strength of the proximal femur.
    Johannesdottir F; Thrall E; Muller J; Keaveny TM; Kopperdahl DL; Bouxsein ML
    Bone; 2017 Dec; 105():93-102. PubMed ID: 28739416
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. To what extent can linear finite element models of human femora predict failure under stance and fall loading configurations?
    Schileo E; Balistreri L; Grassi L; Cristofolini L; Taddei F
    J Biomech; 2014 Nov; 47(14):3531-8. PubMed ID: 25261321
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Orthotropic HR-pQCT-based FE models improve strength predictions for stance but not for side-way fall loading compared to isotropic QCT-based FE models of human femurs.
    Luisier B; Dall'Ara E; Pahr DH
    J Mech Behav Biomed Mater; 2014 Apr; 32():287-299. PubMed ID: 24508715
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Prediction of femoral strength using 3D finite element models reconstructed from DXA images: validation against experiments.
    Grassi L; Väänänen SP; Ristinmaa M; Jurvelin JS; Isaksson H
    Biomech Model Mechanobiol; 2017 Jun; 16(3):989-1000. PubMed ID: 28004226
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Comparison of proximal femur and vertebral body strength improvements in the FREEDOM trial using an alternative finite element methodology.
    Zysset P; Pahr D; Engelke K; Genant HK; McClung MR; Kendler DL; Recknor C; Kinzl M; Schwiedrzik J; Museyko O; Wang A; Libanati C
    Bone; 2015 Dec; 81():122-130. PubMed ID: 26141837
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. A nonlinear QCT-based finite element model validation study for the human femur tested in two configurations in vitro.
    Dall'Ara E; Luisier B; Schmidt R; Kainberger F; Zysset P; Pahr D
    Bone; 2013 Jan; 52(1):27-38. PubMed ID: 22985891
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Patient-specific finite-element analyses of the proximal femur with orthotropic material properties validated by experiments.
    Trabelsi N; Yosibash Z
    J Biomech Eng; 2011 Jun; 133(6):061001. PubMed ID: 21744921
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Are DXA/aBMD and QCT/FEA Stiffness and Strength Estimates Sensitive to Sex and Age?
    Rezaei A; Giambini H; Rossman T; Carlson KD; Yaszemski MJ; Lu L; Dragomir-Daescu D
    Ann Biomed Eng; 2017 Dec; 45(12):2847-2856. PubMed ID: 28940110
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Can CT image deblurring improve finite element predictions at the proximal femur?
    Falcinelli C; Schileo E; Pakdel A; Whyne C; Cristofolini L; Taddei F
    J Mech Behav Biomed Mater; 2016 Oct; 63():337-351. PubMed ID: 27450036
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Multiple loading conditions analysis can improve the association between finite element bone strength estimates and proximal femur fractures: a preliminary study in elderly women.
    Falcinelli C; Schileo E; Balistreri L; Baruffaldi F; Bordini B; Viceconti M; Albisinni U; Ceccarelli F; Milandri L; Toni A; Taddei F
    Bone; 2014 Oct; 67():71-80. PubMed ID: 25014885
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Prediction of strength and strain of the proximal femur by a CT-based finite element method.
    Bessho M; Ohnishi I; Matsuyama J; Matsumoto T; Imai K; Nakamura K
    J Biomech; 2007; 40(8):1745-53. PubMed ID: 17034798
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Volumetric quantitative computed tomography of the proximal femur: precision and relation to bone strength.
    Lang TF; Keyak JH; Heitz MW; Augat P; Lu Y; Mathur A; Genant HK
    Bone; 1997 Jul; 21(1):101-8. PubMed ID: 9213015
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Experimental validation of finite element model for proximal composite femur using optical measurements.
    Grassi L; Väänänen SP; Amin Yavari S; Weinans H; Jurvelin JS; Zadpoor AA; Isaksson H
    J Mech Behav Biomed Mater; 2013 May; 21():86-94. PubMed ID: 23510970
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Prediction of proximal femur strength using a CT-based nonlinear finite element method: differences in predicted fracture load and site with changing load and boundary conditions.
    Bessho M; Ohnishi I; Matsumoto T; Ohashi S; Matsuyama J; Tobita K; Kaneko M; Nakamura K
    Bone; 2009 Aug; 45(2):226-31. PubMed ID: 19398043
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.