generations among Southeast Asians than among Southern Chinese suggests populations from a warmer climate have inherently better spine health
Sheng-Nan Tang1, Cai-Ying Li1, Jason C. S. Leung2, Anthony W. L. Kwok3, Timothy C. Y. Kwok2,4, Yì Xiáng J. Wáng1
Contributions: (I) Conception and design: YXJ Wáng; (II) Administrative support: JCS Leung, AWL Kwok, TCY Kwok; (III) Provision of study materials or patients: JCS Leung, AWL Kwok; (IV) Collection and assembly of data: SN Tang, JCS Leung, CY Li, AWL Kwok; (V) Data analysis and interpretation: SN Tang, JCS Leung, CY Li, TCY Kwok, YXJ Wáng; (VI) Manuscript writing: All authors; (VII) Final approval of manuscript: All authors.
Background: Compared with older Caucasians, older Chinese have remarkably lower prevalence and lower severity of spine degenerative changes. There have been few studies on Southeast East populations. This study aims to compare radiographic spine degeneration features among older Hong Kong (HK) Chinese, older Thais, and older Indonesians.
Methods: This study included 195 Thai women (mean: 73.6 years), 202 Thai men (mean: 73.7 years), 227 Indonesian women (mean: 70.5 years), and 174 Indonesian men (mean: 70.2 years), as well as same number of gender- and age-matched HK Chinese. The recruitment plan was that the participants would represent the general older population of their respective communities. With spine radiograph, spine hyper-kyphosis, osteoarthritic wedging (OAw), acquired short vertebrae (SVa), general osteophyte formation, lumbar disc space narrowing, and lumbar spondylolisthesis were assessed.
Results: Compared with Southeast Asians (Thais and Indonesian data together), Chinese women and men had a higher prevalence of hyper-kyphosis (24.9% vs. 16.4%), OAw (2.4% vs. 0.9%), general osteophyte formation (15.3% vs. 10.5%), lumber disc space narrowing (27.6% vs. 20.3%), and lumbar spondylolisthesis (20.7% vs. 15.3%). The trends were also consistent for sub-group data analyses. An even lower prevalence was noted among Indonesian women and men than among Thais in general osteophyte formation (5.9% vs. 14.1%), lumbar disc space narrowing (18.3% vs. 24.1%), and lumbar spondylolisthesis (11.4% vs. 19.3%).
Conclusions: This study showed a lower prevalence of spine degeneration changes among older Thais and older Indonesians than among older Chinese. Indonesians, who inhabit an even warmer climate, show even fewer spine degeneration changes than Thais.
Keywords: Spine; vertebral deformities; degeneration; Chinese; Southeast Asians
Submitted Jul 09, 2024. Accepted for publication Aug 06, 2024. Published online Aug 15, 2024.
doi: 10.21037/qims-24-1533
IntroductionOther Section
Ethnic differences in a number of radiological features related to spine degeneration have been studied between Caucasians and East Asians. In a study comparing radiographic vertebral fragility fracture (FF) rates in age-matched Hong Kong (HK) Chinese women and Italian Caucasian women (mean: 74.1 years), endplate and/or vertebral cortex fracture prevalence was 26% for Chinese and 47% for Italian. Vertebral FF in Italian subjects were more likely to be multiple and generally more severe (1). The prevalence of clinical vertebral FF is also much higher among Caucasian men and women than among East Asian men and women (2-4). Yoshimura et al. (5) examined the radiographs of residents in the UK and residents in Japan (aged 60–79 years). British subjects were noted to be much more likely to have lumbar spine radiographs osteoarthritic changes graded as Kellgren-Lawrence 4 severity. In a paired analysis of spine radiographs of age-matched older HK Chinese women and older Italian Caucasian women (mean age: 73.6 years), Italian subjects were noted more likely to have thoracic spine hyper-kyphosis (53.4% vs. 25.6%), OA wedging (OAw, 6.4% vs. 0.67%), Schmorl node (19.5% vs. 4.4%) (6). Italian Caucasian women were also noted to have higher scores for lumbar disc height loss (Italian, 3.6±2.8 vs. HK 2.5±2.1); lumbar antero/retrolisthesis (Italian 0.3±0.7 vs. HK 0.2±0.4); and end plate sclerosis (Italian 1.0±1.2 vs. HK 0.6±1.0) (7). Lumbar spondylolisthesis has also been noted to be relatively low among Japanese and Thais than among Caucasians (3). However, it was demonstrated that lumbar marrow fat content, which has been suggested to be associated with fragility, is not higher among older Italian women than among older Chinese women (8).
Compared with Caucasians, Chinese/Asians are known to have a lower incidence rate of back pain (9-12). From U.S. national surveys 2002, Deyo et al. (9) estimated back pain prevalence and clinics visit rates and showed that, among racial groups, Asian Americans had the lowest prevalence. Waterman et al. (10) queried National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (USA) for all cases of low back pain presenting to emergency departments between 2004 and 2008. They found that the per 1,000 person-years low back pain incident rates were 1.23 among whites, while only 0.20 among Asians. Mailis-Gagnon et al. (11) collected data on new patients over a three-year period at the Comprehensive Pain Program in downtown Toronto. They noted the East Asian group (primarily Chinese) was the most underrepresented (1.6% of the Comprehensive Pain Program population), despite that this group accounted for 9% of the population in Toronto and 6.01% of the Greater Toronto Area population. This lower back pain prevalence among Chinese/Asians is likely associated with the lower spine fracture prevalence and fewer and less severe spin degeneration changes.
There have been more studies conducted on East Asian populations, but few studies conducted on Southeast East populations. The primary aim of this study is to understand, whether the spine degeneration profile of Southeast East population is similar to Chinese population, and thus with a lower prevalence than that of Caucasian populations.
MethodsOther Section
This is part of the Asian Vertebral Osteoporosis Study (AVOS), with the study protocol approved by the local institutional ethics committees. The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki (as revised in 2013). The recruitment plans were designed so that the participants would represent the general elderly population in age and gender proportion of their respective communities. Data collection was conducted from Aug 15, 2001, to Dec 11, 2005. Written informed consent was obtained from all study participants.
According to the initial plan, both Thailand and Indonesia were required to recruit 400 ambulatory community-dwelling subjects (200 males and 200 females), half of whom would be aged 65–74 years and the other half would be aged ≥75 years. Participants were all ethnic Thai (for Thailand) or Indonesians (for Indonesia). Subjects were recruited in urban and rural area community centres (13). For the study participants, radiographic films of the lateral thoracic and lumbar spine were taken with a tube-to-film distance of 100 cm, with thoracic films centred at T8 and lumbar films centred at L3. Chinese data were from the Osteoporosis Fracture in Women (MsOS) and Osteoporosis Fracture in Men (MrOS) HK Study baseline data (14). Aged-matched Chinese spine radiographs were randomly selected from the data pool of 2,000 female and 2,000 male participants. After excluding spine radiographs with insufficient image quality, included in the final analysis were 195 Thai women (mean: 73.6±5.3 years), 202 Thai men (mean: 73.7±6.0 years), 227 Indonesian women (mean: 70.5±5.9 years), and 174 Indonesian men (mean: 70.2±4.9 years). Questionnaires of physical and mental 12-Item Short Form Survey (SF-12) as well as Physical Activity Screening for Elderly score (PASE) were administered to all study participants. In addition, the information of ‘past longest occupation being a farmer’ was also collected (13).
Spine radiographs from the three geographic regions were mixed, and images were jointly read by a radiology trainee (S.N.T.) and a specialist radiologist (Y.X.J.W.), with consensus all achieved. This study evaluated six radiographic features of spine degeneration, including kyphosis, OAw, acquired short vertebrae (SVa), general osteophyte formation, lumbar disc space narrowing, and lumbar spondylolisthesis (Figure 1). Subjectively evaluated hyper-kyphosis included both thoracic spine hyper-kyphosis kyphosis and thoracolumbar junction hyper-kyphosis. OAw was diagnosed according to Abdel-Hamid Osman et al. (15), typically appearing as anterior wedging and with osteophyte and intervertebral disc space narrowing involving at least two adjacent vertebrae. SVa were vertebral deformity with middle vertebra height and anterior vertebra height reduced to a similar extent, and these vertebrae commonly had an anteroposteriorly elongated shape (16,17). SVa is assumed to be mostly associated with degenerative endplatitis (17). Generalized osteophyte formation had at least three adjacent inter-vertebral spaces, i.e., four vertebrae, involved while excluding ankylosing spondylitis. Lumbar disc space narrowing was evaluated from L1/L2 to L4/L5 disc space and was subdivided into three categories: grade 1 (<30% reduction in disc height), grade 2 (30–60% reduction in disc height), grade 3 (>60% reduction in disc height) (18). Lumbar spondylolisthesis was evaluated from L1/L2 to L5/S1 disc space, and the direction of spondylolisthesis (antero/retrolisthesis) was also recorded. The grading of spondylolisthesis was estimated using the Meyerding classification: grade 0, no slip; grade I, ≥5% and <25%; grade II, 26–50%; grade III, 51–75%; grade IV, 76–100%; and grade V, complete slippage.
Figure 1 Examples of spine radiographic degenerative features. (A) A spine of normal morphology and physiological curve; (B) thoracolumbar junction hyper-kyphosis (arrow); (C) mid-thoracic spine osteoarthritic wedging (arrows) and hyper-kyphosis; (D) lower thoracic spine osteoarthritic wedging (arrows) and hyper-kyphosis; (E) a case with acquired short vertebrae and general osteophyte formation; (F) lumbar spondylolisthesis (grade 1 anterolisthesis, arrow); (G) lumber disc space narrowing (grade 1, arrow). (H) Lumber disc space narrowing (grade 2, arrows); (I) lumber disc space narrowing (grade 3, arrow).
Data analysis was processed using GraphPad Software (GraphPad Software Inc. San Diego, USA). Thais and Indonesians were both classified as Southeast Asians. Categorical variables were analysed by the chi-square test or Fisher exact test. Paired-samples Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test was used for the comparison of spine degeneration scores between age-matched populations. A P value <0.05 was considered statistically significant, >0.1 as not significant, and between 0.05 and 0.1 as with a trend of significance.
ResultsOther Section
The general physical and mental health survey results and the former occupation history are shown in Table 1. There was no apparent difference in SF-12 physical and mental scores among Chinese, Thai, and Indonesians, both for women and for men. PASE score was higher among Chinese women, but there was no apparent difference among men. Both Thai women and men had a higher proportion with the past longest occupation being a farmer.
Table 1
SF-12 physical and mental, PASE, and longest occupation characteristics of study participants
Categories | HK vs. Thai | HK vs. Indo | |||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Female | Male | Female | Male | ||||||||||||
HK (n=195) | Thai (n=195) | P value | HK (n=202) | Thai (n=202) | P value | HK (n=227) | Indo (n=227) | P value | HK (n=174) | Indo (n=174) | P value | ||||
Age (years) | 73.6±5.3 | 73.7±6.0 | 70.5±5.9 | 70.2±4.9 | |||||||||||
SF-12 (physical) | 47.4±8.3 | 43.6±11.6 | 0.010 | 50.4±8.5 | 46.1±10.9 | <0.010 | 48.0±8.3 | 41.8±11.6 | <0.010 | 51.3±7.3 | 47.2±10.4 | 0.001 | |||
SF-12 (mental) | 54.9±7.0 | 52.8±9.2 | 0.146 | 55.6±6.3 | 53.2±8.6 | 0.019 | 55.0±7.0 | 52.3±8.2 | <0.010 | 54.3±7.6 | 52.1±8.1 | 0.02 | |||
PASE score | 93.5±47.6 | 76.4±44.9 | <0.001 | 97.4±49.3 | 97.1±80 | 0.107 | 91.7±36.9 | 74.5±40.5 | <0.001 | 103.0±50.9 | 104.3±66.8 | 0.675 | |||
Longest occupation | 0 | 75 (38.5) | N/A | 4 (2.0) | 90 (44.6) | <0.001 | 0 | 11 (4.8) | N/A | 0 | 19 (6.9) | N/A |
Data are represented as mean ± standard deviation or positive cases (percentage). Longest occupation: past longest occupation being a farmer. PASE: physical activity screening for elderly. SF-12, 12-Item Short Form Survey; PASE, Physical Activity Screening for Elderly score; HK, Hong Kong; Thai, Thailand; Indo, Indonesians; N/A, not applicable.
With HK data used as the reference, radiographic spine degeneration comparisons between three regions are summarized in Figure 2, Table 2. Pooling together the female data and male data, HK Chinese had a higher prevalence of hyper-kyphosis (Chinese: 24.9% vs. Southeast Asians 16.4%, P<0.001), a higher prevalence of OAw (2.4% vs. 0.9%, P=0.018), a higher prevalence of general osteophyte formation (15.3%, vs. 10.5%, P=0.005), a higher prevalence of lumber disc space narrowing (27.6% vs. 20.3%, P=0.001), a higher prevalence of lumbar spondylolisthesis (20.7% vs. 15.3%, P= 0.005). The trends were the same for the sub-group data analyses. However, there was no statistically significant difference in SVa prevalence among HK Chinese and Southeast Asians.
Figure 2 One-to-one matched subgroup comparison of six spine degenerative features. Except acquired short vertebrae (short vertebrae), HK Chinese show an overall higher prevalence of spine degenerative changes than Thais or Indo, both for F and M. HK, Hong Kong; F, women; Thai, Thailand; Indo, Indonesians; M, men; OA wedging, osteoarthritic wedging.
Table 2
Comparison of prevalence of thoracolumbar spine degenerative features between female and male age-matched cases from Hong Kong and Southeast Asian countries
Categories | Chinese | Thai & Indo | P value |
---|---|---|---|
Total (mean age, 72.01 yrs) (n=798) | |||
Kyphosis | 199 (24.94) | 131 (16.42) | <0.001 |
OAw | 19 (2.38) | 7 (0.88) | 0.018 |
SVa | 95 (11.90) | 82 (10.28) | 0.3 |
General osteophyte formation | 122 (15.29) | 84 (10.53) | 0.005 |
Lumber disc space narrowing | 220 (27.57) | 162 (20.30) | 0.001 |
Lumbar spondylolisthesis | 165 (20.68) | 122 (15.29) | 0.005 |
Women (mean age, 71.94 yrs) (n=422) | |||
Kyphosis | 102 (24.17) | 75 (17.77) | 0.022 |
OAw | 6 (1.42) | 3 (0.71) | 0.315 |
SVa | 41 (9.72) | 36 (8.53) | 0.55 |
General osteophyte formation | 43 (10.19) | 27 (6.40) | 0.046 |
Lumber disc space narrowing | 122 (28.91) | 88 (20.85) | 0.007 |
Lumbar spondylolisthesis | 100 (23.7) | 75 (17.77) | 0.034 |
Men (mean age, 72.09 yrs) (n=376) | |||
Kyphosis | 97 (25.80) | 56 (14.89) | <0.001 |
OAw | 13 (3.46) | 4 (1.06) | 0.027 |
SVa | 54 (14.36) | 46 (12.23) | 0.39 |
General osteophyte formation | 79 (21.01) | 57 (15.16) | 0.037 |
Lumber disc space narrowing | 98 (26.06) | 74 (19.68) | 0.037 |
Lumbar spondylolisthesis | 65 (17.29) | 47 (12.50) | 0.065 |
Data are represented as positive cases (percentage). Thai, Thailand; Indo, Indonesians; yrs, years; OAw, osteoarthritic wedging; SVa, acquired short vertebrae.
A further comparison was conducted between Thais and Indonesians, where Thai participants and Indonesian participants were age-matched with allowing + one year or -one year difference, and the results are shown in Figure 3 and Table 3. For general osteophyte formation, lumbar disc space narrowing, and lumbar spondylolisthesis, an even lower prevalence was noted among Indonesians than among Thais.
Figure 3 One-to-one matched comparison of general osteophyte formation (A), lumber disc space narrowing (B), and lumbar spondylolisthesis (C) between Thais and Indo. Indonesians show a lower prevalence of these degenerative changes both for F and M. Thai, Thailand; F, women; Indo, Indonesians; M, men.
Table 3
Comparison of spine degenerative features between Thailand and Indonesia based on age-matched cases (±1 years).
Categories | All | Female | Male | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Thai (n=290) | Indo (n=290) | P value | Thai (n=150) | Indo (n=150) | P value | Thai (n=140) | Indo (n=140) | P value | |||
Age (years) | 72.06±4.98 | 71.91±5.60 | 72.47±5.46 | 72.42±6.19 | 71.61±4.36 | 71.36±4.80 | |||||
General osteophyte formation | 41 (14.14) | 17 (5.86) | 0.001 | 12 (8.00) | 5 (3.33) | 0.080 | 29 (20.71) | 12 (8.57) | 0.004 | ||
Lumber disc space narrowing | 70 (24.14) | 53 (18.28) | 0.001 | 41 (27.33) | 25 (16.67) | 0.026 | 29 (20.71) | 24 (17.14) | 0.446 | ||
Lumbar spondylolisthesis | 56 (19.31) | 33 (11.38) | 0.008 | 32 (21.33) | 23 (15.33) | 0.179 | 24 (17.14) | 10 (7.14) | 0.010 |
Data are represented as mean ± standard deviation or positive cases (percentage). P values are calculated by comparing Thais and Indo. Thai, Thailand; Indo, Indonesians.
Lumbar disc space narrowing had the highest prevalence at the L4/L5 level (L1/S1 not evacuated), this was the same for Chinese and for Southeast Asians (Figure 4). The prevalence of lumber disc space narrowing was higher among Chinese than among Indonesians at each vertebral level (Figure 4, Table 4). Lumbar spondylolisthesis had the highest prevalence at the L4/L5 level, this was the same for Chinese and for Southeast Asians (Figure 5). Anterolisthesis was the dominant lumber vertebral spondylolisthesis among both Chinese and Southeast Asians, and the majority were grade I spondylolisthesis for all subgroups (Table 5). The prevalence of lumbar spondylolisthesis was higher among Chinese than among Indonesians.
Figure 4 Lumber disc space narrowing (all grades) at four-disc levels. The highest prevalence is noted at L4/L5 level. A higher prevalence of lumber disc space narrowing is noted for HK Chinese than for Indo at the levels. However, the difference between HK Chinese and Thais is less notable. HK, Hong Kong; F, women; Thai, Thailand; Indo, Indonesians; M, men.
Table 4
Comparison of severity of lumbar disc space narrowing among Hong Kong Chinese, Thais, and Indonesians.
Grades | Total (n=798) (mean age 72.01 years) | Women (n=422) (mean age 71.94 years) | Men (n=376) (mean age 72.09 years) | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
HK | Thai + Indo | HK | Thai + Indo | HK | Thai + Indo | |||
G1 | 102 (12.78) | 69 (8.65) | 66 (15.64) | 44 (10.43) | 36 (9.57) | 25 (6.65) | ||
G2 | 66 (8.27) | 56 (7.02) | 38 (9.00) | 27 (6.40) | 28 (7.45) | 29 (7.71) | ||
G3 | 75 (9.40) | 67 (8.40) | 33 (7.82) | 36 (8.53) | 42 (11.17) | 31 (8.24) | ||
∑G1–G3 | 220 (27.57) | 162 (20.30) | 122 (28.91) | 88 (20.85) | 98 (26.06) | 74 (19.68) | ||
∑G2–G3 | 129 (16.17) | 113 (14.16) | 61 (14.45) | 60 (14.22) | 68 (18.09) | 53 (14.10) |
Data are represented as positive cases (percentage). G, grade of lumbar disc space narrowing. HK, Hong Kong; Thai, Thailand; Indo, Indonesians.
Figure 5 Lumbar spondylolisthesis (both antero- and retro-listhesis) at five-disc levels. The highest prevalence is at L4/L5 level. A higher prevalence of lumber spondylolisthesis narrowing is noted for HK Chinese than for Indo, both for F and M. However, the difference between HK Chinese and Thais is minimal. HK, Hong Kong; F, women; Thai, Thailand; Indo, Indonesians; M, men.
Table 5
Comparison of severity of lumbar spondylolisthesis between Hong Kong Chinese, Thais, and Indonesians.
Spondylolisthesis | Total (n=798) (mean age 72.01 years) | Women (n=422) (mean age 71.94 years) | Men (n=376) (mean age 72.09 years) | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
HK | Thai + Indo | HK | Thai + Indo | HK | Thai + Indo | |||
Prevalence | 165 (20.68) | 122 (15.29) | 100 (23.70) | 75 (17.77) | 65 (17.29) | 47 (12.50) | ||
Grade I | 161 (20.18) | 118 (14.79) | 98 (23.22) | 72 (17.06) | 63 (16.76) | 46 (12.23) | ||
Grade II | 4 (0.50) | 4 (0.50) | 2 (0.47) | 3 (0.71) | 2 (0.53) | 1 (0.27) | ||
Anterolisthesis | 140 (17.54) | 115 (14.41) | 88 (20.85) | 73 (17.3) | 52 (13.83) | 42 (11.17) | ||
Retrolisthesis | 28 (3.51) | 14 (1.75) | 13 (3.08) | 5 (1.18) | 15 (3.99) | 9 (2.39) |
Data are represented as positive cases (percentage). HK, Hong Kong; Thai, Thailand; Indo, Indonesians.
DiscussionOther Section
Using HK Chinese as the reference and using Thais and Indonesians as examples for Southeast Asians, this study demonstrated that older Southeast Asians suffer fewer spine degenerations than Chinese. More interestingly, Indonesians who inhabit an even warmer climate than Thais, demonstrated even fewer spine degenerations than Thais in terms of general osteophyte formation, lumbar space narrowing, and lumbar spondylolisthesis. That consistent patterns were observed both for men and for women and there was a decreasing gradient from Chinese to Thais to Indonesians mitigate the possibility of sampling bias. It has been well acknowledged that populations originating from sub-Saharan African regions have stronger spine/bones (19-23). In Europe, it has been well noted that Mediterranean Europeans have better overall bone health than northern Europeans. The hip fracture incidence rates are the highest in the Scandinavian countries particularly those of Norway, Denmark, Sweden, and Iceland, while lower among Southern Europeans (24,25). Lucas et al. (25) predicted that, the maximum hip fracture incidence rate (per 100,000 subjects) is 1389.8 for Swedish women and 1,089.7 for Danish women (742.4 for Swedish men, 551.1 for Danish men), 376.0 for Portuguese women and 420.0 for Spanish women (156.9 for Portuguese men, and 195.0 for Spanish men). With the European Vertebral Osteoporosis Study (EVOS) data, O'Neill et al. (26) described that radiographic vertebral deformity prevalence was highest in the Scandinavian populations. In the European Prospective Osteoporosis Study (EPOS), Felsenberg et al. (27) described that age-standardized incidence of morphometric vertebral fracture was 17.7 and 7.3 per 1,000 person-years for older Scandinavia women and men, and 10.2 and 3.6 per 1,000 person-years for older Southern Europeans. Taking the results from Europe and the results in this study together, we postulate that populations from a warmer climate have better spine health. Moreover, ‘spine health’ may not be a standalone phenomenon, instead, spine health is related to the overall general bone health of the population (28). For example, the ratio of spine FF risk to hip FF is consistent among East Asian populations and among Caucasian populations (29). Nevitt et al. (30) reported Chinese have a lower age-standardized prevalence of radiographic hip osteoarthritis, compared with Caucasians in the US. Zhang et al. (31) also reported a lower prevalence of hand osteoarthritis among Chinese, compared with Caucasians in the US.
The difference gradients are likely sharper for the Caucasians-Chinese comparison than for the Chinese-Southeast Asians comparison. Older Italian women and HK Chinese women had spine hyper-kyphosis prevalence of 53.4% and 25.6% respectively (6); while in this study HK Chinese women and Indonesian women had spine hyper-kyphosis prevalence of 23.8% and 17.6% respectively. The Study of Osteoporotic Fractures (SOF) for American women (mean age: 71.5 years) reported a spondylolisthesis prevalence of 43.1% while MsOS HK study for Chinese women reported spondylolisthesis prevalence of 25.0% (mean age: 72.6 years) (32,33). MrOS USA for American men (mean age: 74.0 years) reported a spondylolisthesis prevalence of 31% while MrOS HK for Chinese men reported spondylolisthesis prevalence of 19.1% (mean age: 72.4 years) (32-34). In this study, the spondylolisthesis prevalences among Thai women and men were similar to the HK Chinese. That Thai women have similar spondylolisthesis prevalence as those of Chinese women and Japanese women has been reported earlier (35,36).
Both Lumber disc space narrowing and lumber spondylolisthesis had the highest prevalence at the L4/L5 level for both Chinese and Southeast Asians. These are consistent with many earlier reports with various ethnic groups. Consistent with earlier reports (17), a trend was noted that SVa prevalence was higher among men than among women, this was the same for Chinese, Thais, and Indonesians. It was earlier noted that there was no difference in SVa prevalence between older Italian women and older HK Chinese women (6).
Spinal degeneration prevalence and severity differences observed between HK Chinese and Southeast Asians may be a result of racial or genetic factors related to ethnicity, as well as other physical, social, cultural, and economic differences related to their place of residence. We further postulate that biological contributors (genetic factors) dominantly cause these differences between Chinese and Southeast Asians. Previous studies have demonstrated heritable genetic contributions to spine degeneration (37-39). In comparison with Caucasian women, Walker et al. (40) noted that postmenopausal Chinese women have a higher trabecular plate-to-rod ratio and greater whole bone stiffness, translating into a greater trabecular mechanical competence. Within the United States, a much lower hip fracture rate among older Asians than among older Caucasians has been consistently observed, while these comparisons were less affected by lifestyle differences. HK Chinese and Chinese in the United States both have a hip fracture prevalence of no more than half of that of Caucasians (22,41). Ross et al. (42) described that, although the lifestyle of the Hawaii Japanese is more westernized than Okinawa Japanese, the hip fracture rates of Hawaii Japanese and Okinawa Japanese are almost the same. Among Scandinavian countries, Lucas et al. (25) predicted that, the maximum hip fracture incidence rate (per 100,000 subjects) was 649.5 for Finn women (Finn men: 429.8), which is much lower than the rate of 1,389.8 for Swedish women (Swedish men: 742.4) and the rate of 1,089.7 for Danish women (Danish men: 551.1). It is assumed that Finish people (Finns) originated between the Volga, Oka, and Kama rivers in what is now Russia. They moved towards the Baltic Sea area in 1,250–1,000 BC. It has been well documented that Thais had an influx of population from southern China. Thais also on average tend to have fairer skin than Indonesians. ‘That populations from a warmer climate have better spine health’ may be more of a result of evolutional adaptation, rather than the direct result of a warmer environment and more sunshine.
There are a number of limitations to this study. The main limitation is the sample sizes are relatively small, with approximately 200 cases per ethnic and gender group. These sample sizes cannot detect small or subtle differences reliably, and this is further complicated by the subjectivities associated with radiographic sign assessment. Thus, while the trends were consistent for the majority of comparisons, in a few comparisons the trends were not consistent. Moreover, to achieve statistical significance in some aspects, we attempted to combine the male and female data together and also combine the Thai data and Indonesian data together. This study was conducted by subjectively determining the existence or absence of spine degenerative features. It is possible the subjectivity associated with our results may not allow inter-study comparisons; however, we trust the results of intra-study comparisons remain valid. As noted above, that consistent patterns were observed both for men and for women and there was a decreasing gradient from Chinese to Thais to Indonesians mitigate the possibility of sampling bias. Though we used population-based and age-match pairs, not all factors were well-matched for all the study participants. PASE score was higher among Chinese women. Both Thai women and men had a higher proportion with the past longest occupation being a farmer. Few HK Chinese in this study had an occupation being a farmer. These factors might not have majorly affected the results of the current study. Actually, earlier studies suggest that manual labour activities increase the prevalence of spine degeneration (43,44). Another limitation is that, for Southeast Asia countries, we only studied Thais and Indonesians.
In conclusion, this study demonstrates that older Southeast Asians have a lower prevalence of spine degenerations than Chinese. Indonesians demonstrate an even lower prevalence of spine degenerations than Thais in general osteophyte formation, lumbar space narrowing, and lumbar spondylolisthesis. Our results suggest populations from a warmer climate have better spine health. The observed differences may reflect a foundational background influence of genetic predisposition that represents an important line of research for the future.
AcknowledgmentsOther Section
We thank the current and past staff at JC Centre for Osteoporosis Care and Control of the Chinese University of Hong Kong for their supports and thank Dr. Edith M. C. Lau for the pioneering work in osteoporosis research in Hong Kong.
Funding: None.
FootnoteOther Section
Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at https://qims.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/qims-24-1533/coif). Y.X.J.W. serves as the Editor-in-Chief of Quantitative Imaging in Medicine and Surgery. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Ethical Statement: The authors are accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. This is part of the Asian Vertebral Osteoporosis Study (AVOS), with the study protocol approved by the local institutional ethics committees. The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki (as revised in 2013). Written informed consent was obtained from all study participants.
Open Access Statement: This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which permits the non-commercial replication and distribution of the article with the strict proviso that no changes or edits are made and the original work is properly cited (including links to both the formal publication through the relevant DOI and the license). See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.
ReferencesOther Section
Wáng YXJ, Diacinti D, Leung JCS, Iannacone A, Kripa E, Kwok TCY, Diacinti D. Much lower prevalence and severity of radiographic osteoporotic vertebral fracture in elderly Hong Kong Chinese women than in age-matched Rome Caucasian women: a cross-sectional study. Arch Osteoporos 2021;16:174. [Crossref] [PubMed]
Hayhoe RPG, Chan R, Skinner J, Leung J, Jennings A, Khaw KT, Woo J, Welch AA. Fracture Incidence and the Relevance of Dietary and Lifestyle Factors Differ in the United Kingdom and Hong Kong: An International Comparison of Longitudinal Cohort Study Data. Calcif Tissue Int 2021;109:563-76. [Crossref] [PubMed]
Wáng YXJ, Deng M, Griffith JF, Kwok AWL, Leung JCS, Lam PMS, Yu BWM, Leung PC, Kwok TCY. 'Healthier Chinese spine': an update of osteoporotic fractures in men (MrOS) and in women (MsOS) Hong Kong spine radiograph studies. Quant Imaging Med Surg 2022;12:2090-105. [Crossref] [PubMed]
Wáng YXJ, Griffith JF, Blake GM, Diacinti D, Xiao BH, Yu W, Su Y, Jiang Y, Guglielmi G, Guermazi A, Kwok TCY. Revision of the 1994 World Health Organization T-score definition of osteoporosis for use in older East Asian women and men to reconcile it with their lifetime risk of fragility fracture. Skeletal Radiol 2024;53:609-25. [Crossref] [PubMed]
Yoshimura N, Dennison E, Wilman C, Hashimoto T, Cooper C. Epidemiology of chronic disc degeneration and osteoarthritis of the lumbar spine in Britain and Japan: a comparative study. J Rheumatol 2000;27:429-33. [PubMed]
Wáng YXJ, Diacinti D, Iannacone A, Kripa E, Leung JCS, Kwok TCY, Diacinti D. A comparison of radiographic degeneration features of older Chinese women and older Italian Caucasian women with a focus on thoracic spine. Aging Clin Exp Res 2023;35:2583-91. [Crossref] [PubMed]
So TY, Diacinti D, Leung JCS, Iannacone A, Kripa E, Kwok TCY, Diacinti D, Wang YXJ. Lower Prevalence and Severity of Degenerative Changes in the Lumbar Spine in Elderly Hong Kong Chinese Compared With Age-Matched Italian Caucasian Women. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2022;47:1710-8. [Crossref] [PubMed]
Wáng YXJ, Diacinti D, Griffith JF, Yeung DKW, Iannacone A, Kripa E, Leung JCS, Kwok TCY, Diacinti D. Lumbar L3 marrow fat content in older Italian women is not apparently higher than in older Chinese women. Ann Transl Med 2022;10:648. [Crossref] [PubMed]
Deyo RA, Mirza SK, Martin BI. Back pain prevalence and visit rates: estimates from U.S. national surveys, 2002. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2006;31:2724-7. [Crossref] [PubMed]
Waterman BR, Belmont PJ Jr, Schoenfeld AJ. Low back pain in the United States: incidence and risk factors for presentation in the emergency setting. Spine J 2012;12:63-70. [Crossref] [PubMed]
Mailis-Gagnon A, Yegneswaran B, Nicholson K, Lakha SF, Papagapiou M, Steiman AJ, Ng D, Cohodarevic T, Umana M, Zurowski M. Ethnocultural and sex characteristics of patients attending a tertiary care pain clinic in Toronto, Ontario. Pain Res Manag 2007;12:100-6. [Crossref] [PubMed]
Meana M, Cho R, DesMeules M. Chronic Pain: The Extra Burden on Canadian Women. BMC Womens Health 2004;4:S17. [Crossref] [PubMed]
Kwok AW, Leung JC, Chan AY, Au BS, Lau EM, Yurianto H, Yuktanandana P, Yoshimura N, Muraki S, Oka H, Akune T, Leung PC. Prevalence of vertebral fracture in Asian men and women: comparison between Hong Kong, Thailand, Indonesia and Japan. Public Health 2012;126:523-31. [Crossref] [PubMed]
Kwok AW, Gong JS, Wang YX, Leung JC, Kwok T, Griffith JF, Leung PC. Prevalence and risk factors of radiographic vertebral fractures in elderly Chinese men and women: results of Mr. OS (Hong Kong) and Ms. OS (Hong Kong) studies. Osteoporos Int 2013;24:877-85. [Crossref] [PubMed]
Abdel-Hamid Osman A, Bassiouni H, Koutri R, Nijs J, Geusens P, Dequeker J. Aging of the thoracic spine: distinction between wedging in osteoarthritis and fracture in osteoporosis--a cross-sectional and longitudinal study. Bone 1994;15:437-42. [Crossref] [PubMed]
Wáng YXJ, Lu ZH, Leung JCS, Fang ZY, Kwok TCY. Osteoporotic-like vertebral fracture with less than 20% height loss is associated with increased further vertebral fracture risk in older women: the MrOS and MsOS (Hong Kong) year-18 follow-up radiograph results. Quant Imaging Med Surg 2023;13:1115-25. [Crossref] [PubMed]
Wáng YXJ. Endplatitis short vertebrae. Quant Imaging Med Surg 2024;14:2725-33. [Crossref] [PubMed]
Wang YX, Griffith JF, Zeng XJ, Deng M, Kwok AW, Leung JC, Ahuja AT, Kwok T, Leung PC. Prevalence and sex difference of lumbar disc space narrowing in elderly chinese men and women: osteoporotic fractures in men (Hong Kong) and osteoporotic fractures in women (Hong Kong) studies. Arthritis Rheum 2013;65:1004-10. [Crossref] [PubMed]
Eisenstein S. The morphometry and pathological anatomy of the lumbar spine in South African negroes and caucasoids with specific reference to spinal stenosis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1977;59:173-80. [Crossref] [PubMed]
Taitz C. Osteophytosis of the cervical spine in South African blacks and whites. Clin Anat 1999;12:103-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]
Belachew DA, Sandu N, Schaller B, Guta Z. Ankylosing spondylitis in sub-Saharan Africa. Postgrad Med J 2009;85:353-7. [Crossref] [PubMed]
Fang J, Freeman R, Jeganathan R, Alderman MH. Variations in hip fracture hospitalization rates among different race/ethnicity groups in New York City. Ethn Dis 2004;14:280-4. [PubMed]
Shin MH, Zmuda JM, Barrett-Connor E, Sheu Y, Patrick AL, Leung PC, Kwok A, Kweon SS, Nam HS, Cauley JA. Race/ethnic differences in associations between bone mineral density and fracture history in older men. Osteoporos Int 2014;25:837-45. [Crossref] [PubMed]
Cheng SY, Levy AR, Lefaivre KA, Guy P, Kuramoto L, Sobolev B. Geographic trends in incidence of hip fractures: a comprehensive literature review. Osteoporos Int 2011;22:2575-86. [Crossref] [PubMed]
Lucas R, Martins A, Severo M, Silva P, Monjardino T, Gaio AR, Cooper C, Barros H. Quantitative modelling of hip fracture trends in 14 European countries: testing variations of a shared reversal over time. Sci Rep 2017;7:3754. [Crossref] [PubMed]
O'Neill TW, Felsenberg D, Varlow J, Cooper C, Kanis JA, Silman AJ. The prevalence of vertebral deformity in european men and women: the European Vertebral Osteoporosis Study. J Bone Miner Res 1996;11:1010-8. [Crossref] [PubMed]
Felsenberg D, Silman AJ, Lunt M, Armbrecht G, Ismail AA, et al. Incidence of vertebral fracture in europe: results from the European Prospective Osteoporosis Study (EPOS). J Bone Miner Res 2002;17:716-24. [Crossref] [PubMed]
Himič V, Syrmos N, Ligarotti GKI, Kato S, Fehlings MG, Ganau M. The role of genetic and epigenetic factors in determining the risk of spinal fragility fractures: new insights in the management of spinal osteoporosis. Quant Imaging Med Surg 2023;13:7632-45. [Crossref] [PubMed]
Wáng YXJ. The definition of spine bone mineral density (BMD)-classified osteoporosis and the much inflated prevalence of spine osteoporosis in older Chinese women when using the conventional cutpoint T-score of -2.5. Ann Transl Med 2022;10:1421. [Crossref] [PubMed]
Nevitt MC, Xu L, Zhang Y, Lui LY, Yu W, Lane NE, Qin M, Hochberg MC, Cummings SR, Felson DT. Very low prevalence of hip osteoarthritis among Chinese elderly in Beijing, China, compared with whites in the United States: the Beijing osteoarthritis study. Arthritis Rheum 2002;46:1773-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]
Zhang Y, Xu L, Nevitt MC, Niu J, Goggins JP, Aliabadi P, Yu W, Lui LY, Felson DT. Lower prevalence of hand osteoarthritis among Chinese subjects in Beijing compared with white subjects in the United States: the Beijing Osteoarthritis Study. Arthritis Rheum 2003;48:1034-40. [Crossref] [PubMed]
Vogt MT, Rubin D, Valentin RS, Palermo L, Donaldson WF 3rd, Nevitt M, Cauley JA. Lumbar olisthesis and lower back symptoms in elderly white women. The Study of Osteoporotic Fractures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1998;23:2640-7. [Crossref] [PubMed]
He LC, Wang YX, Gong JS, Griffith JF, Zeng XJ, Kwok AW, Leung JC, Kwok T, Ahuja AT, Leung PC. Prevalence and risk factors of lumbar spondylolisthesis in elderly Chinese men and women. Eur Radiol 2014;24:441-8. [Crossref] [PubMed]
Denard PJ, Holton KF, Miller J, Fink HA, Kado DM, Yoo JU, Marshall LM. Lumbar spondylolisthesis among elderly men: prevalence, correlates, and progression. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2010;35:1072-8. [Crossref] [PubMed]
Chaiwanichsiri D, Jiamworakul A, Jitapunkul S. Lumbar disc degeneration in Thai elderly: a population-based study. J Med Assoc Thai 2007;90:2477-81. [PubMed]
Wang YXJ, Káplár Z, Deng M, Leung JCS. Lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis epidemiology: A systematic review with a focus on gender-specific and age-specific prevalence. J Orthop Translat 2017;11:39-52. [Crossref] [PubMed]
Livshits G, Popham M, Malkin I, Sambrook PN, Macgregor AJ, Spector T, Williams FM. Lumbar disc degeneration and genetic factors are the main risk factors for low back pain in women: the UK Twin Spine Study. Ann Rheum Dis 2011;70:1740-5. [Crossref] [PubMed]
Rajasekaran S, Kanna RM, Reddy RR, Natesan S, Raveendran M, Cheung KMC, Chan D, Kao PYP, Yee A, Shetty AP. How Reliable Are the Reported Genetic Associations in Disc Degeneration?: The Influence of Phenotypes, Age, Population Size, and Inclusion Sequence in 809 Patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2016;41:1649-60. [Crossref] [PubMed]
Mäkitie RE, Niinimäki T, Nieminen MT, Schalin-Jäntti C, Niinimäki J, Mäkitie O. Impaired WNT signaling and the spine-Heterozygous WNT1 mutation causes severe age-related spinal pathology. Bone 2017;101:3-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]
Walker MD, Shi S, Russo JJ, Liu XS, Zhou B, Zhang C, Liu G, McMahon DJ, Bilezikian JP, Guo XE. A trabecular plate-like phenotype is overrepresented in Chinese-American versus Caucasian women. Osteoporos Int 2014;25:2787-95. [Crossref] [PubMed]
Ho SC, Bacon WE, Harris T, Looker A, Maggi S. Hip fracture rates in Hong Kong and the United States, 1988 through 1989. Am J Public Health 1993;83:694-7. [Crossref] [PubMed]
Ross PD, Norimatsu H, Davis JW, Yano K, Wasnich RD, Fujiwara S, Hosoda Y, Melton LJ 3rd. A comparison of hip fracture incidence among native Japanese, Japanese Americans, and American Caucasians. Am J Epidemiol 1991;133:801-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]
Salo S, Hurri H, Rikkonen T, Sund R, Kröger H, Sirola J. Association between severe lumbar disc degeneration and self-reported occupational physical loading. J Occup Health 2022;64:e12316. [Crossref] [PubMed]
Wáng YXJ. A summary of our recent evidence-based works on radiographic diagnostics of prevalent osteoporotic vertebral fracture in older men and women. Quant Imaging Med Surg 2023;13:1264-85. [Crossref] [PubMed]
Cite this article as: Tang SN, Li CY, Leung JCS, Kwok AWL, Kwok TCY, Wáng YXJ. Fewer spine degenerations among Southeast Asians than among Southern Chinese suggests populations from a warmer climate have inherently better spine health. Quant Imaging Med Surg 2024;14(9):6922-6933. doi: 10.21037/qims-24-1533
感谢QIMS杂志授权转载!
原文链接:
https://qims.amegroups.org/article/view/127688/html
About the Journal
Quantitative Imaging in Medicine and Surgery
Aims and Scope
Quantitative Imaging in Medicine and Surgery (QIMS, Quant Imaging Med Surg, Print ISSN 2223-4292; Online ISSN 2223-4306) publishes peer-reviewed original reports and reviews in medical imaging, including X-ray, ultrasound, computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopy, nuclear medicine and related modalities, and their application in medicine and surgery. While focus is on clinical investigations, papers on medical physics, image processing, or biological studies which have apparent clinical relevance are also published. This journal encourages authors to look at the medical images from a quantitative angle. This journal also publishes important topics on imaging-based epidemiology, and debates on research methodology, medical ethics, and medical training. Descriptive radiological studies of high clinical importance are published as well.
QIMS is an open-access, international peer-reviewed journal, published by AME Publishing Company. It is published quarterly (Dec. 2011- Dec. 2012), bimonthly (Feb. 2013 - Feb 2018), monthly (Mar. 2018 - ) and openly distributed worldwide.
QIMS is indexed in PubMed/PubMed Central, Scopus, Web of Science [Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE)]. The latest impact factor is: 2.9.
Indexing
Quantitative Imaging in Medicine and Surgery is indexed and covered by
Web of Science [Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE)]
PubMed
PubMed Central (PMC)
Google Scholar
Scopus
Information for Authors
QIMS is a member of Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and it follows the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)'s guidelines and the ICMJE recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journal.
Manuscripts submitted must be the original work of the author(s) and must not be published previously or under consideration for publication elsewhere.
Manuscripts Turnaround Time
First Editorial Decision: 3-5 days
Peer review: 1-2 months
Revision time: 2-4 weeks
Publication Ahead of Print: within 1 month after being accepted
Formal publication: within 1-3 months after being accepted. Original Articles are listed as priority.
QIMS’s position on case reports and review articles.
QIMS welcomes case reports where quantitative imaging played a role for diagnosis and/or treatment; also welcome first time realization (in animals or in human subjects) of a new imaging technique. These case reports are usually written a concise and short letter format (see <https://qims.amegroups.com/>) for example. Case reports of particular clinical importance are also published in a longer format; for these cases we expect important pathophysiological, diagnostic, therapeutic implications. We do not publish case report only because of the rarity of the cases. Note, although we believer reporting case materials is important for the advancement of medicine. The space reserved for case report remains limited for each issue. The decision to publish or not publish a case material submission can sometimes depend on the available space of the journal.
QIMS welcomes reviews and comments on published papers. Review papers should contain authors’ analytical appraisal of published papers and personal viewpoints, instead of a mere aggregation of published abstracts.
We expect review papers are in three forms, 1) expert reviews, usually published in editorial format, provide authors’ own insights and perspective; 2) systematic review; 3) educational reviews, including pictorial reviews. Systematic reviews (maybe narrative in writing but critical in nature) are particularly welcomed.
Publication Schedule
Published quarterly from Dec. 2011 to Dec. 2012 and bimonthly from Feb. 2013 to Feb 2018, QIMS now follows a monthly publication model.
Open Access Statement
This journal is a peer reviewed, open access journal. All content of the journal is published under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). All articles published open access will be immediately and permanently free for all to read, download, copy and distribute as defined by the applied license.
Free access and usage
Permitted third party reuse is defined by the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license. This license allows users to copy and distribute the article, provided:
this is not done for commercial purposes and further does not permit distribution of the Article if it is changed or edited in any way.
the user gives appropriate credit (with a link to the formal publication through the relevant DOI) and provides a link to the license but not in an any way implying that the licensor is endorsing the user or the use of the work.
no derivatives including remix, transform, or build upon the material was allowed for distribution.
The full details of the license are available at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Copyright
For open access publishing, this journal uses an exclusive licensing agreement. Authors will transfer copyright to QIMS, but will have the right to share their article in the same way permitted to third parties under the relevant user license, as well as certain scholarly usage rights.
For any inquiry/special circumstance on the copyright, commercial usage or adaptation of QIMS articles, please contact: permissions@amegroups.com
For reprint order, please contact: sales@amegroups.com
Support for Authors to Comply with Funding Body Mandates
We work with authors of research articles supported by funding bodies with open access mandates to ensure that authors can meet their funders’ requirements for public access to research results.
In addition, we offer further support for authors who are required to comply with funding body mandates, including but not limited to:
All articles published open access will be immediately and permanently free for everyone to read, download, copy and distribute. If a specific open access license is needed, please contact the editorial office for confirmation before submission. Example of statements in a published article: https://jgo.amegroups.org/article/view/76355/html.
No copyright is claimed for any work of the U.S. government. Example of statements in published articles: https://actr.amegroups.org/article/view/8875; https://med.amegroups.org/article/view/8358/html.
Editorial Office
Email: qims@amepc.org
Publisher Information
QIMS is published by AME Publishing Company.
Addresses:
Hong Kong branch office: Flat/RM C 16F, Kings Wing Plaza 1, NO. 3 on Kwan Street, Shatin, NT, Hong Kong, China.
Singapore branch office: Pico Creative Centre, 20 Kallang Ave #03-08, 339411 Singapore, Singapore.
Updated on July 19, 2024
感谢QIMS授权转载!
观点:王毅翔等——新冠肺炎CT检查的临床意义未定,尽可能避免,武汉/湖北除外!
SCI之窗(005)—杜二珠、王毅翔等:调整X 线焦点投照位置以提高正位胸片对椎体骨质疏松性压缩变形的检出率
王毅翔 等:肝脏弥散加权磁共振ADC及IVIM定量 : 现有的困难及部分解决方法
SCI之窗(006)—王毅翔等:老年华人女性骨质疏松性椎体压缩性骨折的发病率及严重程度远低于欧美人群
SCI之窗(011):对东亚男女性老年人修正1994WHO T-值定义骨质疏松的阈值以使其与东亚人群终生脆性骨折的风险一致
QIMS之窗(006):18F-FDG-PET/CT 在结核病诊断及疗效评估中的价值
QIMS之窗(007):腹壁肿瘤及肿瘤样病变的CT及MRI表现
QIMS之窗(008):结合非强化磁共振血管造影、血流定量及灌注成像评估将发生的再次中风
QIMS之窗(009):颅内动脉瘤的神经影像学:考虑瘤体大小以外的解剖及血流动力学因素
QIMS之窗(010):髓鞘脂的UTE (超短回波时间) 磁共振成像:技术发展及挑战
QIMS之窗(011):新冠患者CT测量得到的肺血管指数及临床预后间的关系
QIMS之窗 (012): 双能CT肺血管造影显示新冠肺炎的微血管病变
QIMS之窗 (013): 胸部平片用于严重新冠病的临床价值
QIMS之窗 (014): 活动性肺结核的几种不典型CT表现及机制
QIMS之窗 (015): 类风湿关节炎患者高分辨率外周定量CT评估掌指关节3维关节间隙宽度的共识方法
QIMS之窗 (016): 骨质疏松症的影像学及骨密度诊断: 中国专家共识(英文版)
QIMS之窗 (017): 新冠肺炎的一种新CT征象: 拱形桥征
QIMS之窗 (018): 老年男性X线骨质疏松性椎体骨折综述:聚焦于男女性别间差异
QIMS之窗 (022): 双能CT区分甲状腺乳头状癌患者小于0.5 cm的转移性和非转移性淋巴结
QIMS之窗 (023): 正位胸片及腹部正位平片上识别骨质疏松性椎体压缩变形: 图文综述
QIMS之窗 (024): 基于人工智能的血管抑制技术应用于肺癌筛查中半实性小结节检测
QIMS之窗 (026): 磁共振成像显示前胫腓韧带损伤与踝关节状态及其肌腱、韧带的关系
QIMS之窗 (027): 腹主动脉瘤的CT测量:非标准化测量的临床后果及多平面重建的重要性
QIMS之窗 (028): 人工智能辅助诊断减少急诊全身CT的胸部病变漏诊
QIMS之窗 (029): 性别各异的肝脏衰老过程与磁共振成像
QIMS之窗 (030): 今天的放射科医生遇到明天的人工智能: 许诺、陷阱和无限的潜力
QIMS之窗 (032): 通过多模态融合成像三维定量评估心肌梗死: 方法学、验证和初步临床应用
QIMS之窗 (033): 门脉高压的侧枝循环:解剖及临床相关性
QIMS之窗 (034):医学图像分析应用中计算机视觉和人工智能的新进展
QIMS之窗 (035):大动脉壁的应力分布对动脉粥样硬化的影响
QIMS之窗 (036): 人工智能计算机辅助诊断系统评估肺癌、转移瘤和良性病变的预测准确性
QIMS之窗 (037):4D 血流 MRI 在心血管疾病的临床应用:现状和未来展望
QIMS之窗 (038): 含碘造影剂的交叉反应:我们需要关注吗?
QIMS之窗 (039): 全脑分析显示正常中青年深部灰质和大脑皮层年龄相关性磁敏感率变化
QIMS之窗 (040): 颈动脉支架术治疗后新发缺血性脑病灶与颈动脉钙化环壁分布程度相关
QIMS之窗 (041): 先进脑磁共振技术转化为临床实践:多模态磁共振在传统临床条件下区分痴呆亚型
QIMS之窗 (042): 3,557 名感染 COVID-19 儿童的CT扫描表现: 系统性综述
QIMS之窗 (043): 肩关节不稳影像学图文综述QIMS之窗 (044): 多排计算机断层扫描评估肝门部胆管癌血管受累
QIMS之窗 (045): 多发性骨髓瘤患者肿瘤负荷的全身磁共振成像定量评估: 与预后生物标志物的相关性
QIMS之窗 (046): 虚拟或真实: 肾上腺肿瘤的活体样电影模式重建
QIMS之窗 (047): 血池和肝脏PET 标准化摄取值的年龄相关变化: 对 2526 名患者长达十年的回顾性研究结果
QIMS之窗 (048): 辨认骨质疏松性椎体终板及皮质骨折: 图文综述
QIMS之窗 (049): 经皮冠状动脉介入治疗后有症状患者心肌灌注受损的临床和影像预测因素:动态CT心肌灌注成像的表现
QIMS之窗 (050): 定量磁共振 神经成像用于评估周围神经和神经丛损伤: 图文综述
QIMS之窗 (051): 儿童颈部良恶性肿块的影像学诊断: 图文综述
QIMS之窗 (052): CT肺结节半自动分割 的常规方法和深度学习方法的比较评估
QIMS之窗 (053): 通过ICC评估放射组学特征的可靠性: 系统性综述
QIMS之窗 (054): 550 例小儿脑肿瘤定性 MRI 的诊断准确性:评估计算时代的临床实践
QIMS之窗 (055): 年龄和吸烟对中国健康男性肺血管容积的影响 : 低剂量CT定量测量
QIMS之窗 (056): 通过薄层CT扫描区分肺部部分实性结节的良恶性
QIMS之窗 (057): 不同阶段高血压患者脑白质变化、高血压病程、年龄与脑微出血有关
QIMS之窗 (058): 乳动脉钙化作为动脉粥样硬化性心血管疾病的指标:冠状动脉CT评分系统和颈动脉内中膜厚度的比较分析
QIMS之窗 (059): 老年华人骨质疏松性骨折的发生率不到欧美人群的一半
QIMS之窗 (060): 基于简化时序方案的黑血延时钆增强心脏磁共振成像用于心肌瘢痕检测:检查怀疑冠状动脉疾病患者的单中心经验
QIMS之窗 (061): 弥漫性肝病的 CT 和 MR: 多参数预测建模算法帮助肝实质分类
QIMS之窗 (062): 心脏磁共振评价川崎病患儿心肌综合收缩力: 大型单中心研究
QIMS之窗 (063): 胸腰脊柱骨折的分类: 定量影像学的作用
QIMS之窗 (064): 不规则骨及扁平骨的骨肉瘤: 112例患者的临床及影像学特征
QIMS之窗 (065): “华人脊椎更健康”: MrOS (Hong Kong)和 MsOS(Hong Kong) 研究进展
QIMS之窗 (066): 低球管电压方案CT平描无创诊断肝脂肪
QIMS之窗 (067): 全身磁共振成像在成人淋巴瘤患者分期中的诊断性能—系统综述和荟萃分析
QIMS之窗 (069): 使用放射组学和组合机器学习对帕金森病进展进行纵向聚类分析和预测
QIMS之窗 (070): 直肠内超声和MRI使用直肠系膜浸润深度5mm为截止点对T3直肠癌进行术前亚分类的一致性和存活的意义
QIMS之窗 (071): 肺结节的体积分析:减少基于直径的体积计算和体素计数方法之间的差异
QIMS之窗 (072):深度学习图像重建可降低射线剂量成像的同时保持图像质量:增强腹部CT扫描深度学习重建与混合迭代重建的比较
QIMS之窗 (073): 严重钙化冠状动脉中隐藏的不稳定的斑块
QIMS之窗 (074): 放射组学和混合机器学习对帕金森病进展的纵向聚类分析和预测
QIMS之窗 (075): 冠状动脉慢性完全闭塞病人心血管磁共振成像随访应力分析和晚期钆增强的量化
QIMS之窗 (076): 平扫光谱CT有效原子序数图识别无钙化动脉粥样硬化斑块的临床可行性初步研究
QIMS之窗 (077): 7T磁共振神经影像学: 图文综述QIMS之窗 (078): MRI特征区分结直肠肝转移瘤的组织病理学生长模式
QIMS之窗 (079): 弱监督学习使用弥散加权成像检出急性缺血性中风和出血性梗塞病变的能力
QIMS之窗 (080): 无造影强化光谱CT有效原子序数图识别无钙化动脉粥样硬化斑块:临床可行性初步研究
QIMS之窗 (081): ImageJ定量测量超微血管成像与造影增强超声定量测量对于肝脏转移瘤检查的比较: 初步研究结果
QIMS之窗 (082): 剪切波弹性成像显示: 无论先前抗病毒治疗如何, 慢性戊型肝炎患者肝组织硬度均升高
QIMS之窗 (083): 磁共振与CT在脊柱骨病变中的价值
QIMS之窗 (084): 一种简化评分方案以提高MRI乳房成像报告/数据系统的诊断准确性
QIMS之窗 (085): 晚年抑郁症进展与 MRI 定量磁敏感性测量脑铁沉积的变化
QIMS之窗 (086): 吸烟通过调节黑质纹状体通路中铁沉积与临床症状之间的相互作用对帕金森病起到保护作用
QIMS之窗 (087): 急性肺栓塞后血栓栓塞持续存在的临床和影像学危险因素
QIMS之窗 (088): 在老年女性侧位胸片上自动检出椎体压缩性骨折的软件: Ofeye 1.0
QIMS之窗 (089): 脑血流与脑白质高信号进展之间的关联:一项基于社区成年人的纵向队列研究
QIMS之窗 (090): 基于骨密度诊断老年华人骨质疏松症发病率和定义骨质疏松症的临界T值
QIMS之窗 (091): 臂丛神经磁共振束成像: 循序渐进的步骤
QIMS之窗 (092): 造血病患者通过磁共振模块化报告评估骨髓
QIMS之窗 (093): 使用无造影剂和无触发的弛豫增强血管造影 (REACT) 评估急性缺血性中风的近端颈内动脉狭窄
QIMS之窗 (094): 用于预测自发性脑出血后不良预后和 30 天死亡率的临床-放射组学列线图
QIMS之窗 (095): 深度学习在超声成像识别乳腺导管原位癌和微浸润中的应用
QIMS之窗 (096): 磁共振灌注成像区分胶质瘤复发与假性恶化:系统性综述、荟萃分析及荟萃回归
QIMS之窗 (097): 锥形束 CT 引导微波消融治疗肝穹窿下肝细胞癌:回顾性病例对照研究
QIMS之窗 (098): 阿尔茨海默病患者皮质铁积累与认知和脑萎缩的关系
QIMS之窗 (099): 放射组学机器学习模型使用多样性的MRI数据集检出有临床意义前列腺癌的性能不均一性
QIMS之窗 (100): 一种机器学习方法结合多个磁共振弥散散模型来区分低级别和高级别成人胶质瘤
QIMS之窗 (101): MRPD脂肪分数 (MRI-PDFF)、MRS 和两种组织病理学方法(AI与病理医生)量化脂肪肝
QIMS之窗 (102): 占位性心脏病患者的诊断和生存分析:一项为期10年的单中心回顾性研究
QIMS之窗 (103): Ferumoxytol增强4DMR多相稳态成像在先心病中的应用:2D和3D软件平台评估心室容积和功能
QIMS之窗 (104): 磁共振弹性成像对肝细胞癌肝切除术后肝再生的术前评价
QIMS之窗 (105): 使用定量时间-强度曲线比较炎症性甲状腺结节和甲状腺乳头状癌的超声造影特征:倾向评分匹配分析
QIMS之窗 (106): 口服泡腾剂改善磁共振胰胆管造影 (MRCP)
QIMS之窗 (107): 钆磁共振成像造影剂引起的弛豫率改变显示阿尔茨海默病患者微血管形态变化
QIMS之窗 (108): 轻链心肌淀粉样变性患者左心室心肌做功指数和短期预后:一项回顾性队列研究
QIMS之窗 (109): 基于MR放射组学的机器学习对高级别胶质瘤患者疾病进展的预测价值
QIMS之窗 (110): 高分辨率T2加权MRI与组织病理学集合分析显示其在食管癌分期中的意义
QIMS之窗 (111): 使用多参数磁共振成像和波谱预测放射治疗后前列腺癌的复发: 评估治疗前成像的预后因素
QIMS之窗 (112):双层能谱探测器CT参数提高肺腺癌分级诊断效率
QIMS之窗 (113): 弥散加权T2图谱在预测头颈部鳞状细胞癌患者组织学肿瘤分级中的应用
QIMS之窗 (114): 老年女性椎体高度下降不到 20% 的骨质疏松样椎体骨折与进一步椎体骨折风险增加有关:18年随访结果
QIMS之窗 (115): 膝关节周围巨细胞瘤和软骨母细胞瘤的影像学:99例回顾性分析
QIMS之窗 (116): 胸部CT显示分枝杆菌感染空洞:临床意义和基于深度学习的量化自动检测
QIMS之窗 (117): 基于人工智能的甲状腺结节筛查自动诊断系统的统计优化策略评估和临床评价
QIMS之窗 (118): 基于四维血流磁共振成像的弯曲大脑中动脉壁切应力的分布和区域变化
QIMS之窗 (119): 我们最近关于老年男性和女性流行性骨质疏松性椎体骨折X线诊断的循证工作总结
QIMS之窗 (120): 许莫氏结节与流行性骨质疏松性椎体骨折和低骨密度有关:一项基于老年男性和女性社区人群的胸椎MRI研究
QIMS之窗 (121): 心肌梗死后射血分数保留的心力衰竭患者: 心肌磁共振(MR)组织追踪研究
QIMS之窗 (122): 使用 人工智能辅助压缩传感心脏黑血 T2 加权成像:患者队列研究
QIMS之窗 (123): 整合式18F-FDG PET/MR全身扫描机局部增强扫描在胰腺腺癌术前分期及可切除性评估中的价值
QIMS之窗 (124): 放射组学预测胶质瘤异柠檬酸 脱氢酶基因突变的多中心研究
QIMS之窗 (125): CT与组织病理学对评估冠状动脉钙化的敏感性和相关性的比较
QIMS之窗 (126): 磁敏感加权成像鉴别良恶性门静脉血栓的价值
QIMS之窗 (127): 乳腺癌的超声诊断深度学习模型:超声与临床因素的整合
QIMS之窗 (128): 钆塞酸增强磁共振成像肝胆期成像的优化:叙述性综述
QIMS之窗 (130): 退行性颈椎病患者检出偶发甲状腺结节:一项回顾性 MRI 研究
QIMS之窗 (131):主要由发育原因引起的许莫氏结节和主要由后天原因引起的许莫氏结节:两个相关但不同的表现
QIMS之窗 (132):肱骨头囊性病变: 磁共振成像图文综述
QIMS之窗 (133):高分辨率小视场弥散加权磁共振成像在宫颈癌诊断中的应用
QIMS之窗 (135):深度学习辅助放射平片对膝关节关节炎分级:多角度X线片与先验知识的作用
QIMS之窗 (136): Angio-CT 影像学生物标志预测肝细胞癌经动脉化疗栓塞的疗效
QIMS之窗 (137):术前低放射剂量CT引导下肺结节定位
QIMS之窗 (138):超声造影在乳腺癌患者前哨淋巴结评估和标测中的应用
QIMS之窗 (140):反转恢复超短回波时间 (IR-UTE) 磁共振对脑白质病变的临床评估
QIMS之窗 (141): 层厚对基于深度学习的冠状动脉钙自动评分软件性能的影响
QIMS之窗 (142):支气管内超声弹性成像鉴别肺门纵隔淋巴结良恶性:回顾性研究
QIMS之窗 (143):高血压和肥胖对左心房时相功能的交互作用:三维超声心动图研究
QIMS之窗 (144):超声造影在乳腺癌患者前哨淋巴结评估和标测中的应用
QIMS之窗 (145):基于K-means层级体素聚类的快速高信噪比CEST量化方法
QIMS之窗 (146):常规临床多排CT扫描自动分割机会性评估椎体骨密度和纹理特征的长期可重复性
QIMS之窗 (147):基于人工智能的CT 扫描特征直方图分析预测毛玻璃结节的侵袭性
QIMS之窗 (148):基于心脏CTA图像与超声心动图的深度监督8层residual U-Net计算左心室射血分数
QIMS之窗 (149): 高度实性成分对早期实性肺腺癌的预后影响
QIMS之窗 (150):只在磁共振发现的可疑乳腺病变: 定量表观弥散系数有额外的临床价值吗 ?
QIMS之窗 (151): 人工智能与放射科医生在CT图像骨折诊断准确性方面的比较: 多维度、多部位分析
QIMS之窗 (152): 超声剪切波速检测人群晚期肝纤维化
QIMS之窗 (153):使用Gd-EOB-DTPA增强MR结合血清标志物在乙肝病毒高危患者中区分肿块型肝内胆管癌和非典型HCC
QIMS之窗 (154):术前超声预测甲状腺癌患者喉返神经侵犯
QIMS之窗 (155): T2 弛豫时间对 MRI 表观扩散系数 (ADC) 量化的影响及其潜在的临床意义
QIMS之窗 (156): 成人血液系统恶性肿瘤的急性病变神经放射学:图文综述
QIMS之窗 (157): 老年休闲运动最常见的15种肌肉骨骼损伤: 图文综述
QIMS之窗 (158): T2弛豫时间与磁共振成像表观弥散系数 (ADC) 之间的三相关系
QIMS之窗 (159): T2弛豫时间在解释肌肉骨骼结构MRI表观弥散系数(ADC)的意义
QIMS之窗 (160): 膝骨关节炎的影像学:多模式诊断方法综述
QIMS之窗 (161): 超高场 7T MRI 在帕金森病中准备用于临床了吗?—叙述性综述
QIMS之窗 (162): 碘造影剂在CT结构化RADS中的作用——叙述性综述
QIMS之窗 (163): 医学图像分割中的Transformers: 叙述性综述
QIMS之窗 (164): 肝癌相对于肝组织的长T2导致常规IVIM成像肝癌灌注分数被低估
QIMS之窗 (165): 基于深度学习的多模态肿瘤分割方法: 叙述性综述
QIMS之窗 (167): 基于双能CT的新型生物标志物用于结直肠癌手术后极早期远处转移的风险分层
QIMS之窗 (168): ST段抬高型心肌梗死患者心肌内出血的心脏磁共振成像检测:磁敏感加权成像与T1/T2像素图技术的比较
QIMS之窗 (169): TW3人工智能骨龄评估系统的验证:一项前瞻性、多中心、确认性研究
QIMS之窗 (170): 开发和验证深度学习模型用于髋关节前后位和侧位X线片检测无移位的股骨颈骨折
QIMS之窗 (171): 开滦研究中眼球血管宽度与认知能力下降和脑小血管病负担的关系
QIMS之窗 (172): 终板炎性矮椎(Endplatitis short vertebrae)
QIMS之窗 (173): DDVD像素图的潜在广泛临床应用
QIMS之窗 (174): 弥散性甲状腺病变中超声低回声特点及原理
QIMS之窗 (175): 不同发育状态及成长时期儿童青少年的手部骨骼特征
QIMS之窗 (176): 不同肌肉测量技术在诊断肌肉减少症中的一致性:系统性综述及荟萃分析
QIMS之窗 (177): 用于冠状动脉狭窄功能评估的冠状动脉树描述和病变评估 (CatLet) 评分:与压力线FFR的比较
QIMS之窗 (178): 使用 Sonazoid 的CEUS LI-RADS诊断肝细胞癌的效果:系统评价和荟萃分析
QIMS之窗 (179): 更多证据支持东亚老年女性骨质疏松症QCT腰椎BMD诊断临界点值应该低于欧裔人
QIMS之窗 (180): 相对于无肿瘤直肠壁,直肠癌的血液灌注更高:通过一种新的影像学生物标志物DDVD进行量化
QIMS之窗 (181): 人工智能在超声图像上解释甲状腺结节的诊断性能:一项多中心回顾性研究
QIMS之窗 (182): 先天许莫氏结节有软骨终板完全覆盖及其在许莫氏结节基于病因学分类的意义
QIMS之窗 (183): 合成磁共振成像在预测乳腺癌前哨淋巴结的额外价值
QIMS之窗 (184): 通过体积倍增时间预测早期肺腺癌生长导致分期改变
QIMS之窗 (185): 对比增强盆腔MRI用于预测粘液性直肠癌的治疗反应
QIMS之窗 (186): 探讨骨质疏松症和骨折风险中椎旁肌肉与骨骼健康之间的相互作用:CT和MRI研究全面文献综述
QIMS之窗 (187): 心动周期对双层计算机断层扫描心肌细胞外体积分数测量的影响
QIMS之窗 (188): 帕金森病和多系统萎缩皮质下铁沉积的定量磁敏感图:临床相关性和诊断意义
QIMS之窗 (189): 0~14岁儿童脑18氟脱氧葡萄糖正电子发射断层扫描正常对照模型的建立及变化规律分析
QIMS之窗 (190): 急性缺血性卒中后早期神经功能恶化的多模态成像评估
QIMS之窗 (192): 良性甲状腺结节的分期:原理和超声征象
QIMS之窗 (193): 独立评估5款人工智能软件检测胸片肺结节的准确性
QIMS之窗 (194): 合成磁共振成像在前列腺癌侵袭性诊断和评估中的价值
QIMS之窗 (195): 对比增强超声和高分辨率磁共振在评估组织学定义的易破裂颈动脉斑块的诊断性能比较:系统文献综述和荟萃分析