Use of high-resolution micro-computed tomography (microCT) imaging to assess trabecular and cortical bone morphology has grown immensely. There are several commercially available microCT systems, each with different approaches to image acquisition, evaluation, and reporting of outcomes. This lack of consistency makes it difficult to interpret reported results and to compare findings across different studies. This article addresses this critical need for standardized terminology and consistent reporting of parameters related to image acquisition and analysis, and key outcome assessments, particularly with respect to ex vivo analysis of rodent specimens. Thus the guidelines herein provide recommendations regarding (1) standardized terminology and units, (2) information to be included in describing the methods for a given experiment, and (3) a minimal set of outcome variables that should be reported. Whereas the specific research objective will determine the experimental design, these guidelines are intended to ensure accurate and consistent reporting of microCT-derived bone morphometry and density measurements. In particular, the methods section for papers that present microCT-based outcomes must include details of the following scan aspects: (1) image acquisition, including the scanning medium, X-ray tube potential, and voxel size, as well as clear descriptions of the size and location of the volume of interest and the method used to delineate trabecular and cortical bone regions, and (2) image processing, including the algorithms used for image filtration and the approach used for image segmentation. Morphometric analyses should be based on 3D algorithms that do not rely on assumptions about the underlying structure whenever possible. When reporting microCT results, the minimal set of variables that should be used to describe trabecular bone morphometry includes bone volume fraction and trabecular number, thickness, and separation. The minimal set of variables that should be used to describe cortical bone morphometry includes total cross-sectional area, cortical bone area, cortical bone area fraction, and cortical thickness. Other variables also may be appropriate depending on the research question and technical quality of the scan. Standard nomenclature, outlined in this article, should be followed for reporting of results.

https://asbmr.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/jbmr.141

Guidelines for assessment of bone microstructure in rodents using micro–computed tomography

LDL Receptor-Related Protein 5 (LRP5) Affects Bone Accrual and Eye Development

In vivo corrosion of four magnesium alloys and the associated bone response.

https://www.cell.com/cell/pdf/S0092-8674(00)81558-5.pdf

Leptin Inhibits Bone Formation through a Hypothalamic Relay: A Central Control of Bone Mass

Before publication of the original version of this report in 1987, practitioners of bone histomorphometry communicated with each other in a variety of arcane languages, which in general were unintelligible to those outside the field. The need for standardization of nomenclature had been recognized for many years,(1) during which there had been much talk but no action. To satisfy this need, B Lawrence Riggs (ASBMR President, 1985 to 1986) asked A Michael Parfitt to convene an ASBMR committee to develop a new and unified system of terminology, suitable for adoption by the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research (JBMR) as part of its Instructions to Authors. The resulting recommendations were published in 1987(2) and were quickly adopted not only by JBMR but also by all respected journals in the bone field. The recommendations improved markedly the ability of histomorphometrists to communicate with each other and with nonhistomorphometrists, leading to a broader understanding and appreciation of histomorphometric data.

In 2012, 25 years after the development of the standardized nomenclature system, Thomas L Clemens (Editor in Chief of JBMR) felt that it was time to revise and update the recommendations. The original committee was reconvened by David W Dempster, who appointed one new member, Juliet E Compston. The original document was circulated to the committee members and was extensively revised according to their current recommendations. The key revisions include omission of terminology used before 1987, recommendations regarding the parameters and technical information that should be included in all histomorphometry articles, recommendations on how to handle dynamic parameters of bone formation in settings of low bone turnover, and updating of references.

/pdf/standardized-nomenclature-symbols-and-units-for-bone-gah33fyb68.pdf

Standardized nomenclature, symbols, and units for bone histomorphometry: A 2012 update of the report of the ASBMR Histomorphometry Nomenclature Committee

https://courses.washington.edu/bonephys/ASBMRHisto.pdf

A. M. Parfitt

Papers

Bone Histomorphometry : Standardization of Nomenclature, Symbols, and Units