. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2014 Jul 1.

Published in final edited form as: J Bone Miner Res. 2013 Jul;28(7):1666–1678. doi: 10.1002/jbmr.1919

Table 1.

Comparisons between the HR-pQCT image-based PR model and μCT and HR-pQCT image-based voxel models based on the same human tibia trabecular bone volumes (mean±SD).

	HR-pQCT PR Model	HR-pQCT voxel Model	μCT voxel Model
BV/TV (%)	16.1±3.5 ^a	25.2±5.6	14.5±4.8
Tissue Modulus (GPa)	39.6	10.4	16.6
Apparent Young’s Modulus (MPa)	923±439	919±457	869±587
Yield Strength (MPa)	4.34±2.01	5.87±3.14	5.18±3.89
Total Number of Elements	1,849±502 ^a,^b	86,261±19,339	1,763,102±586,479
CPU Time (sec)	14±5 ^a,^b	17,128±3,495	886,837±258,387

indicates significant difference between HR-pQCT PR model and HR-pQCT voxel model and

between HR-pQCT PR model and μCT voxel model (p<0.05).