# 3 ± 9 2), for a total of 90 participants Three participants’ sca

3 ± 9.2), for a total of 90 participants. Three participants’ scans were lost due to corrupted scan files. A total of 87 women’s scan results were included in this report. The local find protocol human research committee for each facility approved the study, and participants signed an approved informed consent prior to participating. There were no participant restrictions for ethnicity or body mass. Bone densitometry All women were scanned twice on both Hologic Delphi (Hologic, Inc., Waltham, MA, USA) and GE-Lunar Prodigy (Madison, WI, USA) DXA systems using each manufacturer’s standard scan and positioning protocols. Spine phantom quality control scans were

acquired on each of the six systems on a continual basis during the study, but no cross-calibration was performed for any of the systems. Each patient was positioned for the lumbar spine scan and then the left and right proximal femur scans. The subjects were asked to stand between each scan and then repositioned. The 30-s scan mode was

used on both systems and for all positions. The legs were elevated using the Hologic positioning cushion for spine scans on the Hologic systems; legs were flat on the table for the femur learn more scans. The Onescan™ method was used to scan the participants on the GE-Lunar system, except one study facility (UCSF), where the single femur mode was used to scan each hip separately. The positioning and scan modes were picked to mimic current clinical practice and manufacturer Baricitinib recommendations. Scan analysis Using the methods recommended by each manufacturer for the ROI placement, one technologist analyzed all the images using either Hologic Apex 3.0 (prerelease) or GE-Lunar EnCore 10.10. The “compare” (Apex) or “copy” (Prodigy) methods were used to analyze the repeat measurements, thereby facilitating consistent size and placement of analysis regions for each participant. The test–retest precision of the scans was previously reported [6]. In short, the pooled precision from duplicate scans on this population for Apex and Prodigy was statistically the same for L1-L4 (1%) and

total hip (1.1%), and different for the femur neck (2.3% versus 1.8%, respectively (p = 0.03)). Data conversion and statistical analysis Demographics and other characteristics of the study population were expressed as means and standard deviation. The relationship between Apex and Prodigy software was defined using linear regression. The BMD values from both systems were converted into sBMD using the Hui et al. formulas for spinal BMD [3]: $$\beginarray*20c \P5091 molecular weight textsBM\textD_\textspine = 1.0550 \times \left( \textSPTOTBM\textD_\textHologic – 0.972 \right) + 1.0436 \hfill \\ \textsBM\textD_\textspine = 0.9683 \times \left( \textSPTOTBM\textD_\textLunar – 1.100 \right) + 1.0436 \hfill \\ \endarray$$and the Lu et al.