Equivalency of various methods for estimating osteoid seam width

Leigh Quarles, Bruce Lobaugh

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

13 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

We compared the true osteoid seam width (TOSW) as measured by a modification of the orthogonal intercept lengths with various methods of estimating seam widths, including (1) the commonly used length measurements at four equidistant points (O.Wi/4PT), (2) osteoid area divided by the osteoid perimeter (O.Ar/O/Pm) or the bone/osteoid interface (O.Ar/B.Bd), and (3) a novel method for estimating seam width defined as the osteoid area divided by the major axis of the seam (O.Ar/Axis). All methods for approximating osteoid seam width significantly exaggerated the true osteoid seam dimension by an amount that ranged from 16 to 23%. However, the relative accuracy of all methods of estimating osteoid seam width are equivalent as evidenced by the similar mean difference from the TOSW (3.4, 4.1, 5.1, and 3.8) demonstrated by O.Wi/5PT, O.Ar/Axis, O.Ar/O.Pm, O.Ar/B.Bd, respectively. Regression analysis of the various estimates of seam width on TOSW also demonstrated the equivalency of these methods. Moreover, all estimates could be employed to discriminate seams of normal dimensions from abnormally wide seams in bone specimens derived from patients with osteomalacia. Differences between the methods, however, were observed that may have practical importance. In this regard, the direct procedure of determining distance demonstrated less variance than the indirect estimate of width. As a result, the direct measurement required fewer samples (n = 13) to detect a significant difference to normal and could discriminate smaller deviations in seam width (1.7 μm) at a given sample size compared with O.Ar/Axis (n = 28; 2.9 μm), O.Ar/O.Pm (n = 42; 3.4 μm), and O.Ar/B.Bd (n = 42; n = 3.2). However, in spite of the differences in the various methods, all width estimates can be successfully employed to discriminate small changes in seam widths provided that adequate numbers of seams are evaluated and mean values compared.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)671-677
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of Bone and Mineral Research
Volume4
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - 1989
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Bone and Bones
Osteomalacia
Sample Size
Regression Analysis

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism
  • Orthopedics and Sports Medicine

Cite this

Equivalency of various methods for estimating osteoid seam width. / Quarles, Leigh; Lobaugh, Bruce.

In: Journal of Bone and Mineral Research, Vol. 4, No. 5, 1989, p. 671-677.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{e505d141db3d445198dc1a6ce2ebaf5e,
title = "Equivalency of various methods for estimating osteoid seam width",
abstract = "We compared the true osteoid seam width (TOSW) as measured by a modification of the orthogonal intercept lengths with various methods of estimating seam widths, including (1) the commonly used length measurements at four equidistant points (O.Wi/4PT), (2) osteoid area divided by the osteoid perimeter (O.Ar/O/Pm) or the bone/osteoid interface (O.Ar/B.Bd), and (3) a novel method for estimating seam width defined as the osteoid area divided by the major axis of the seam (O.Ar/Axis). All methods for approximating osteoid seam width significantly exaggerated the true osteoid seam dimension by an amount that ranged from 16 to 23{\%}. However, the relative accuracy of all methods of estimating osteoid seam width are equivalent as evidenced by the similar mean difference from the TOSW (3.4, 4.1, 5.1, and 3.8) demonstrated by O.Wi/5PT, O.Ar/Axis, O.Ar/O.Pm, O.Ar/B.Bd, respectively. Regression analysis of the various estimates of seam width on TOSW also demonstrated the equivalency of these methods. Moreover, all estimates could be employed to discriminate seams of normal dimensions from abnormally wide seams in bone specimens derived from patients with osteomalacia. Differences between the methods, however, were observed that may have practical importance. In this regard, the direct procedure of determining distance demonstrated less variance than the indirect estimate of width. As a result, the direct measurement required fewer samples (n = 13) to detect a significant difference to normal and could discriminate smaller deviations in seam width (1.7 μm) at a given sample size compared with O.Ar/Axis (n = 28; 2.9 μm), O.Ar/O.Pm (n = 42; 3.4 μm), and O.Ar/B.Bd (n = 42; n = 3.2). However, in spite of the differences in the various methods, all width estimates can be successfully employed to discriminate small changes in seam widths provided that adequate numbers of seams are evaluated and mean values compared.",
author = "Leigh Quarles and Bruce Lobaugh",
year = "1989",
doi = "10.1002/jbmr.5650040505",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "4",
pages = "671--677",
journal = "Journal of Bone and Mineral Research",
issn = "0884-0431",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Equivalency of various methods for estimating osteoid seam width

AU - Quarles, Leigh

AU - Lobaugh, Bruce

PY - 1989

Y1 - 1989

N2 - We compared the true osteoid seam width (TOSW) as measured by a modification of the orthogonal intercept lengths with various methods of estimating seam widths, including (1) the commonly used length measurements at four equidistant points (O.Wi/4PT), (2) osteoid area divided by the osteoid perimeter (O.Ar/O/Pm) or the bone/osteoid interface (O.Ar/B.Bd), and (3) a novel method for estimating seam width defined as the osteoid area divided by the major axis of the seam (O.Ar/Axis). All methods for approximating osteoid seam width significantly exaggerated the true osteoid seam dimension by an amount that ranged from 16 to 23%. However, the relative accuracy of all methods of estimating osteoid seam width are equivalent as evidenced by the similar mean difference from the TOSW (3.4, 4.1, 5.1, and 3.8) demonstrated by O.Wi/5PT, O.Ar/Axis, O.Ar/O.Pm, O.Ar/B.Bd, respectively. Regression analysis of the various estimates of seam width on TOSW also demonstrated the equivalency of these methods. Moreover, all estimates could be employed to discriminate seams of normal dimensions from abnormally wide seams in bone specimens derived from patients with osteomalacia. Differences between the methods, however, were observed that may have practical importance. In this regard, the direct procedure of determining distance demonstrated less variance than the indirect estimate of width. As a result, the direct measurement required fewer samples (n = 13) to detect a significant difference to normal and could discriminate smaller deviations in seam width (1.7 μm) at a given sample size compared with O.Ar/Axis (n = 28; 2.9 μm), O.Ar/O.Pm (n = 42; 3.4 μm), and O.Ar/B.Bd (n = 42; n = 3.2). However, in spite of the differences in the various methods, all width estimates can be successfully employed to discriminate small changes in seam widths provided that adequate numbers of seams are evaluated and mean values compared.

AB - We compared the true osteoid seam width (TOSW) as measured by a modification of the orthogonal intercept lengths with various methods of estimating seam widths, including (1) the commonly used length measurements at four equidistant points (O.Wi/4PT), (2) osteoid area divided by the osteoid perimeter (O.Ar/O/Pm) or the bone/osteoid interface (O.Ar/B.Bd), and (3) a novel method for estimating seam width defined as the osteoid area divided by the major axis of the seam (O.Ar/Axis). All methods for approximating osteoid seam width significantly exaggerated the true osteoid seam dimension by an amount that ranged from 16 to 23%. However, the relative accuracy of all methods of estimating osteoid seam width are equivalent as evidenced by the similar mean difference from the TOSW (3.4, 4.1, 5.1, and 3.8) demonstrated by O.Wi/5PT, O.Ar/Axis, O.Ar/O.Pm, O.Ar/B.Bd, respectively. Regression analysis of the various estimates of seam width on TOSW also demonstrated the equivalency of these methods. Moreover, all estimates could be employed to discriminate seams of normal dimensions from abnormally wide seams in bone specimens derived from patients with osteomalacia. Differences between the methods, however, were observed that may have practical importance. In this regard, the direct procedure of determining distance demonstrated less variance than the indirect estimate of width. As a result, the direct measurement required fewer samples (n = 13) to detect a significant difference to normal and could discriminate smaller deviations in seam width (1.7 μm) at a given sample size compared with O.Ar/Axis (n = 28; 2.9 μm), O.Ar/O.Pm (n = 42; 3.4 μm), and O.Ar/B.Bd (n = 42; n = 3.2). However, in spite of the differences in the various methods, all width estimates can be successfully employed to discriminate small changes in seam widths provided that adequate numbers of seams are evaluated and mean values compared.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0024342124&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0024342124&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/jbmr.5650040505

DO - 10.1002/jbmr.5650040505

M3 - Article

VL - 4

SP - 671

EP - 677

JO - Journal of Bone and Mineral Research

JF - Journal of Bone and Mineral Research

SN - 0884-0431

IS - 5

ER -