930 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26148575)
1. Generation of 3D shape, density, cortical thickness and finite element mesh of proximal femur from a DXA image.
Väänänen SP; Grassi L; Flivik G; Jurvelin JS; Isaksson H
Med Image Anal; 2015 Aug; 24(1):125-134. PubMed ID: 26148575
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. Prediction of Hip Failure Load: In Vitro Study of 80 Femurs Using Three Imaging Methods and Finite Element Models-The European Fracture Study (EFFECT).
Pottecher P; Engelke K; Duchemin L; Museyko O; Moser T; Mitton D; Vicaut E; Adams J; Skalli W; Laredo JD; Bousson V
Radiology; 2016 Sep; 280(3):837-47. PubMed ID: 27077380
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Estimation of 3D shape, internal density and mechanics of proximal femur by combining bone mineral density images with shape and density templates.
Väänänen SP; Jurvelin JS; Isaksson H
Biomech Model Mechanobiol; 2012 Jul; 11(6):791-800. PubMed ID: 21986796
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Assessment of the 3-D shape and mechanics of the proximal femur using a shape template and a bone mineral density image.
Väänänen SP; Isaksson H; Julkunen P; Sirola J; Kröger H; Jurvelin JS
Biomech Model Mechanobiol; 2011 Jul; 10(4):529-38. PubMed ID: 20809392
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Technical note: comparison between single and multiview simulated DXA configurations for reconstructing the 3D shape and bone mineral density distribution of the proximal femur.
Humbert L; Whitmarsh T; Craene MD; Del Río Barquero LM; Frangi AF
Med Phys; 2012 Aug; 39(8):5272-6. PubMed ID: 22894452
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Validation of 3D finite element models from simulated DXA images for biofidelic simulations of sideways fall impact to the hip.
Grassi L; Fleps I; Sahlstedt H; Väänänen SP; Ferguson SJ; Isaksson H; Helgason B
Bone; 2021 Jan; 142():115678. PubMed ID: 33022451
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. Reconstructing the 3D shape and bone mineral density distribution of the proximal femur from dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry.
Whitmarsh T; Humbert L; De Craene M; Del Rio Barquero LM; Frangi AF
IEEE Trans Med Imaging; 2011 Dec; 30(12):2101-14. PubMed ID: 21803681
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. A preliminary dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry-based finite element model for assessing osteoporotic hip fracture risk.
Luo Y; Ferdous Z; Leslie WD
Proc Inst Mech Eng H; 2011 Dec; 225(12):1188-95. PubMed ID: 22320058
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 3D reconstruction of the lumbar vertebrae from anteroposterior and lateral dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry.
Whitmarsh T; Humbert L; Del Río Barquero LM; Di Gregorio S; Frangi AF
Med Image Anal; 2013 May; 17(4):475-87. PubMed ID: 23466075
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 3D Finite Element Models Reconstructed From 2D Dual-Energy X-Ray Absorptiometry (DXA) Images Improve Hip Fracture Prediction Compared to Areal BMD in Osteoporotic Fractures in Men (MrOS) Sweden Cohort.
Grassi L; Väänänen SP; Jehpsson L; Ljunggren Ö; Rosengren BE; Karlsson MK; Isaksson H
J Bone Miner Res; 2023 Sep; 38(9):1258-1267. PubMed ID: 37417707
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Which Two-dimensional Radiographic Measurements of Cam Femoroacetabular Impingement Best Describe the Three-dimensional Shape of the Proximal Femur?
Atkins PR; Shin Y; Agrawal P; Elhabian SY; Whitaker RT; Weiss JA; Aoki SK; Peters CL; Anderson AE
Clin Orthop Relat Res; 2019 Jan; 477(1):242-253. PubMed ID: 30179924
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Development of an open-source measurement system to assess the areal bone mineral density of the proximal femur from clinical CT images.
Uemura K; Otake Y; Takao M; Makino H; Soufi M; Iwasa M; Sugano N; Sato Y
Arch Osteoporos; 2022 Jan; 17(1):17. PubMed ID: 35038079
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Assessment of femoral neck strength by 3-dimensional X-ray absorptiometry.
Le Bras A; Kolta S; Soubrane P; Skalli W; Roux C; Mitton D
J Clin Densitom; 2006; 9(4):425-30. PubMed ID: 17097528
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Sensitivity of proximal femoral stiffness and areal bone mineral density to changes in bone geometry and density.
Pisharody S; Phillips R; Langton CM
Proc Inst Mech Eng H; 2008 Apr; 222(3):367-75. PubMed ID: 18491705
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Concept and development of an orthotropic FE model of the proximal femur.
Wirtz DC; Pandorf T; Portheine F; Radermacher K; Schiffers N; Prescher A; Weichert D; Niethard FU
J Biomech; 2003 Feb; 36(2):289-93. PubMed ID: 12547369
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Automated 3D trabecular bone structure analysis of the proximal femur--prediction of biomechanical strength by CT and DXA.
Baum T; Carballido-Gamio J; Huber MB; Müller D; Monetti R; Räth C; Eckstein F; Lochmüller EM; Majumdar S; Rummeny EJ; Link TM; Bauer JS
Osteoporos Int; 2010 Sep; 21(9):1553-64. PubMed ID: 19859642
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Automated segmentation of cortical and trabecular bone to generate finite element models for femoral bone mechanics.
Väänänen SP; Grassi L; Venäläinen MS; Matikka H; Zheng Y; Jurvelin JS; Isaksson H
Med Eng Phys; 2019 Aug; 70():19-28. PubMed ID: 31280927
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Assessment of the individual fracture risk of the proximal femur by using statistical appearance models.
Schuler B; Fritscher KD; Kuhn V; Eckstein F; Link TM; Schubert R
Med Phys; 2010 Jun; 37(6):2560-71. PubMed ID: 20632568
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
