Automated selection of bone texture regions on hand radiographs: Data from the Osteoarthritis Initiative

Manual selection of finger trabecular bone texture regions on hand X-ray images is time-consuming, tedious, and observer-dependent. Therefore, we developed an automated method for the region selection. The method selects square trabecular bone regions of interest above and below the second to fifth distal and proximal interphalangeal joints. Two regions are selected per joint (16 regions per hand). The method consists of four integral parts: (1) segmentation of a radiograph into hand and background, (2) identification of finger regions, (3) localization of center points of heads of distal phalanges and the distal interphalangeal, proximal interphalangeal, and metacarpophalangeal joints, and (4) placement of the regions of interest under and above the distal and proximal interphalangeal joints. A gold standard was constructed from regions selected by two observers on 40 hand X-ray images taken from Osteoarthritis Initiative cohort. Datasets of 520 images were generated from the 40 images to study the effects of hand and finger positioning. The accuracy in regions selection and the agreement in calculating five directional fractal parameters were evaluated against the gold standard. The accuracy, agreement, and effects of hand and finger positioning were measured using similarity index (0 for no overlap and 1 for entire overlap) and interclass correlation coefficient as appropriate. A high accuracy in selecting regions (similarity index ≥ 0.79) and a good agreement in fractal parameters (interclass correlation coefficient ≥ 0.58) were achieved. Hand and finger positioning did not affect considerably the region selection (similarity index ≥ 0.70). These results indicate that the method developed selects bone regions on hand X-ray images with accuracy sufficient for fractal analyses of bone texture

Prediction models for the risk of gestational diabetes : a systematic review

Background Numerous prediction models for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) have been developed, but their methodological quality is unknown. The objective is to systematically review all studies describing first-trimester prediction models for GDM and to assess their methodological quality. Methods MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched until December 2014. Key words for GDM, first trimester of pregnancy, and prediction modeling studies were combined. Prediction models for GDM performed up to 14 weeks of gestation that only include routinely measured predictors were eligible. Data was extracted by the CHecklist for critical Appraisal and data extraction for systematic Reviews of prediction Modelling Studies (CHARMS). Data on risk predictors and performance measures were also extracted. Each study was scored for risk of bias. Results Our search yielded 7761 articles, of which 17 were eligible for review (14 development studies and 3 external validation studies). The definition and prevalence of GDM varied widely across studies. Maternal age and body mass index were the most common predictors. Discrimination was acceptable for all studies. Calibration was reported for four studies. Risk of bias for participant selection, predictor assessment, and outcome assessment was low in general. Moderate to high risk of bias was seen for the number of events, attrition, and analysis. Conclusions Most studies showed moderate to low methodological quality, and few prediction models for GDM have been externally validated. External validation is recommended to enhance generalizability and assess their true value in clinical practice