1[1]Langton CM, Palmer SB, Porter RW. The measurement of broadband ultrasonic attenuation in cancellous bone. Engl Med, 1984,13:89-91.
2[2]Keith A. Wear, et al. Assessment of bone density using ultrasonic backscatter. Ultrasound Med Biol, 1998,24: 689-695.
3[3]Giat P, et al. Clinical assessment of a new ultrasound technique usingbackseattered signals: preliminary results, URA CNRS 1458.
4[4]Deligianni DD, Voulgaris DE, Lymberis A, et al. Influence of density andstructure of bovine cancellous bone on ultrasonic properties. 11 th Confer-ence of the ESB,Toulouse,France:July 8-11 98.
5[5]Saulgozis J, Pontaga I. Relationships between X-ray density, calcium con-tent and ultrasound propagation in the human tibia. 11 th Conference of theESB, Toulouse, France: July 8-11 98.
6[6]Evans WD, Jones EA and Owen GM. Factors affecting the in vivo preci-sion of broadband ultrasonic attenuation. Phys Med Biol, 1995,40:137-151.
7[7]Blake GM, Mherd R J, Miller CG, et al. Should broadband ultrasoundattenuation be normalized for the width of the calcaneus? Br J Radiol,1994,67:1206.
8[8]Hanley JA, Mcneil BJ. The meaning and use of the area under a receiveroperating characteristic(ROC) curve. Radiology, 1982,143.29-36.
9[9]Toyras J,Kroger H,Jurvelin JS.Bone properties as estimated by mineraldensity, ultrasound attenuation, and velocity. Bone, 1999,25: 725-731.
10[10]Nicholson PHF, Droin P, et al. Inter-system comparison of site-matchedultrasonic measurements of the calcaneus in vitro. Eur J Ultrasound,1997,5:191-202.
