Arnav Sanyal

Mr. Arnav Sanyal

orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

16Years (2011-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
20 December 2011 in Journal of Bone and Mineral Research
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
XWXiang Wang
Xiang Wang
ASArnav Sanyal
Arnav Sanyal
PCPeggy Cawthon
Peggy Cawthon
LPLisa Palermo
Lisa Palermo
MJMichael Jekir
Michael Jekir
TKTony M Keaveny
Tony M Keaveny
Vertebral strength, as estimated by finite element analysis of computed tomography (CT) scans, has not yet been compared against areal bone mineral density (BMD) by dual‐energy X‐ray absorptiometry (DXA) for prospectively assessing the risk of new clinical vertebral fractures. To do so, we conducted a case‐cohort analysis of 306 men aged 65 years and older, which included 63 men who developed new clinically‐identified vertebral fractures and 243 men who did not, all observed over an average of 6.5 years. Nonlinear finite element analysis was performed on the baseline CT scans, blinded to fracture status, to estimate L1 vertebral compressive strength and a load‐to‐strength ratio. Volumetric BMD by quantitative CT and areal BMD by DXA were also evaluated. We found that, for the risk of new clinical vertebral fracture, the age‐adjusted hazard ratio per standard deviation change for areal BMD (3.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.0–5.2) was significantly lower (p < 0.005) than for strength (7.2; 95% CI, 3.6–14.1), numerically lower than for volumetric BMD (5.7; 95% CI, 3.1–10.3), and similar for the load‐to‐strength ratio (3.0; 95% CI, 2.1–4.3). After also adjusting for race, body mass index (BMI), clinical center, and areal BMD, all these hazard ratios remained highly statistically significant, particularly those for strength (8.5; 95% CI, 3.6–20.1) and volumetric BMD (9.4; 95% CI, 4.1–21.6). The area‐under‐the‐curve for areal BMD (AUC = 0.76) was significantly lower than for strength (AUC = 0.83, p = 0.02), volumetric BMD (AUC = 0.82, p = 0.05), and the load‐to‐strength ratio (AUC = 0.82, p = 0.05). We conclude that, compared to areal BMD by DXA, vertebral compressive strength and volumetric BMD consistently improved vertebral fracture risk assessment in this cohort of elderly men. © 2012 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

1 March 2015 in Bone
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
JWJi Wang
Ji Wang
BZBin Zhou
Bin Zhou
XLX. Sherry Liu
X. Sherry Liu
AFAaron Fields
Aaron Fields
ASArnav Sanyal
Arnav Sanyal
XGX. Edward Guo
X. Edward Guo

1 October 2012 in Journal of Biomechanics
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
ASArnav Sanyal
Arnav Sanyal
AGAtul Gupta
Atul Gupta
HBHarun H. Bayraktar
Harun H. Bayraktar
RKRonald Y. Kwon
Ronald Y. Kwon
TKTony M. Keaveny
Tony M. Keaveny

6 November 2013 in Journal of Biomechanical Engineering
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
ASArnav Sanyal
Arnav Sanyal
TKTony M. Keaveny
Tony M. Keaveny
The biaxial failure behavior of the human trabecular bone, which has potential relevance both for fall and gait loading conditions, is not well understood, particularly for low-density bone, which can display considerable mechanical anisotropy. Addressing this issue, we investigated the biaxial normal strength behavior and the underlying failure mechanisms for human trabecular bone displaying a wide range of bone volume fraction (0.06–0.34) and elastic anisotropy. Micro-computed tomography (CT)-based nonlinear finite element analysis was used to simulate biaxial failure in 15 specimens (5 mm cubes), spanning the complete biaxial normal stress failure space in the axial-transverse plane. The specimens, treated as approximately transversely isotropic, were loaded in the principal material orientation. We found that the biaxial stress yield surface was well characterized by the superposition of two ellipses—one each for yield failure in the longitudinal and transverse loading directions—and the size, shape, and orientation of which depended on bone volume fraction and elastic anisotropy. However, when normalized by the uniaxial tensile and compressive strengths in the longitudinal and transverse directions, all of which depended on bone volume fraction, microarchitecture, and mechanical anisotropy, the resulting normalized biaxial strength behavior was well described by a single pair of (longitudinal and transverse) ellipses, with little interspecimen variation. Taken together, these results indicate that the role of bone volume fraction, microarchitecture, and mechanical anisotropy is mostly accounted for in determining the uniaxial strength behavior and the effect of these parameters on the axial-transverse biaxial normal strength behavior per se is minor.