Table 1 Reported variability of finite element results as an effect of different computed tomography parameters
From: Effect of CT imaging on the accuracy of the finite element modelling in bone
Authors, year [reference] | Comparison between | Specimens | Number | Variables | Variability |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Keyak and Falkinstein (2003) [23] | In situ versus in vitro (water) | Femur | 2 | Ultimate load | 5.2% and 13.3% |
Carpenter et al. (2014) [7] | CT scanners | Femur | 20 | Ultimate load | 12.5% (CV) |
Eggermont et al. (2018) [14] | CT scanners | Femur | 6 | Ultimate load | Maximum 17% |
Eggermont et al. (2018) [14] | Slice thickenss | Femur | 6 | Ultimate load | Maximum 4% |
Eggermont et al. (2018) [14] | Field of view | Femur | 6 | Ultimate load | Maximum 4% |
Eggermont et al. (2018) [14] | Reconstruction kernels | Femur | 6 | Ultimate load | Maximum 9% |
Michalski et al. (2019) [30] | Reconstruction kernels | Femur | 1 | Ultimate load | 18.2% |
Michalski et al. (2019) [30] | Reconstruction kernels | Femur | 1 | Stiffness | 16.5% |