158 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 36657193)
1. 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]
2. Which experimental procedures influence the apparent proximal femoral stiffness? A parametric study.
Amini M; Reisinger A; Hirtler L; Pahr D
BMC Musculoskelet Disord; 2021 Sep; 22(1):815. PubMed ID: 34556078
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Experimental validation of DXA-based finite element models for prediction of femoral strength.
Dall'Ara E; Eastell R; Viceconti M; Pahr D; Yang L
J Mech Behav Biomed Mater; 2016 Oct; 63():17-25. PubMed ID: 27341287
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. Robust QCT/FEA models of proximal femur stiffness and fracture load during a sideways fall on the hip.
Dragomir-Daescu D; Op Den Buijs J; McEligot S; Dai Y; Entwistle RC; Salas C; Melton LJ; Bennet KE; Khosla S; Amin S
Ann Biomed Eng; 2011 Feb; 39(2):742-55. PubMed ID: 21052839
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. 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]
9. Prediction of fracture load and stiffness of the proximal femur by CT-based specimen specific finite element analysis: cadaveric validation study.
Miura M; Nakamura J; Matsuura Y; Wako Y; Suzuki T; Hagiwara S; Orita S; Inage K; Kawarai Y; Sugano M; Nawata K; Ohtori S
BMC Musculoskelet Disord; 2017 Dec; 18(1):536. PubMed ID: 29246133
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. A robust 3D finite element simulation of human proximal femur progressive fracture under stance load with experimental validation.
Hambli R; Allaoui S
Ann Biomed Eng; 2013 Dec; 41(12):2515-27. PubMed ID: 23864338
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. QCT-based finite element models predict human vertebral strength in vitro significantly better than simulated DEXA.
Dall'Ara E; Pahr D; Varga P; Kainberger F; Zysset P
Osteoporos Int; 2012 Feb; 23(2):563-72. PubMed ID: 21344244
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. 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]
15. The effect of deep learning-based lesion segmentation on failure load calculations of metastatic femurs using finite element analysis.
Ataei A; Eggermont F; Verdonschot N; Lessmann N; Tanck E
Bone; 2024 Feb; 179():116987. PubMed ID: 38061504
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. An exclusion approach for addressing partial volume artifacts with quantititive computed tomography-based finite element modeling of the proximal tibia.
Kalajahi SMH; Nazemi SM; Johnston JD
Med Eng Phys; 2020 Feb; 76():95-100. PubMed ID: 31870545
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. Effect of finite element model loading condition on fracture risk assessment in men and women: the AGES-Reykjavik study.
Keyak JH; Sigurdsson S; Karlsdottir GS; Oskarsdottir D; Sigmarsdottir A; Kornak J; Harris TB; Sigurdsson G; Jonsson BY; Siggeirsdottir K; Eiriksdottir G; Gudnason V; Lang TF
Bone; 2013 Nov; 57(1):18-29. PubMed ID: 23907032
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Femoral fracture load and fracture pattern is accurately predicted using a gradient-enhanced quasi-brittle finite element model.
Haider IT; Goldak J; Frei H
Med Eng Phys; 2018 May; 55():1-8. PubMed ID: 29551293
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Morphology based anisotropic finite element models of the proximal femur validated with experimental data.
Enns-Bray WS; Ariza O; Gilchrist S; Widmer Soyka RP; Vogt PJ; Palsson H; Boyd SK; Guy P; Cripton PA; Ferguson SJ; Helgason B
Med Eng Phys; 2016 Nov; 38(11):1339-1347. PubMed ID: 27641660
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
