Computed tomography-based finite element analysis to assess fracture risk and osteoporosis treatment

Table 1 Validation studies of the proximal femur

Ref.	Software	Variable	R2	Slope
Cody et al[9]	EBE-PCG	One-legged stance fracture load	0.84	0.85
Keyak et al[14]	ABAQUS	Stance configuration fracture load	0.75	0.99
Keyak et al[14]	ABAQUS	Fall configuration fracture load	0.90	1.24
Keyak[27]	ABAQUS	Stance configuration fracture load	0.93	1.15
Bessho et al[18]	Mechanical Finder	Stance configuration fracture load	0.96	0.94
Bessho et al[18]	Mechanical Finder	Principal strain	0.93	0.91
Tanck et al[15]	MARC	Stance configuration fracture load	0.92	1.07
Derikx et al[16]	MSC (von-Mises criterion)	Stance configuration failure force	0.91	0.92
Derikx et al[16]	MSC (Drucker-Prager criterion)	Stance configuration failure force	0.91-0.94	0.93-1.01
Dragomir-Daescu et al[28]	ANSYS Mechanical APDL	Sideways fall fracture load	0.86	1.36

Used software of finite element analysis, validation variables, cross-validation R² values, and slope of the regression line are summarized.

Table 2 Validation studies of the spine

Ref.	Software	Variable	R2	Slope
Silva et al[29]	ABAQUS	10 mm thick vertebral section yield load	0.91	0.86
Martin et al[30]	ADINA	Failure load	0.79	0.57
Crawford et al[31]	ABAQUS	Compressive strength	0.86	0.72
Imai et al[17]	Mechanical Finder	Failure load	0.96	0.88
Imai et al[17]	Mechanical Finder	Minimum principal strain	0.70	0.93
Kinzl et al[33]	ABAQUS	Apparent strength	0.92	1.02