University of Wolverhampton
Browse
Collection All
bullet
bullet
bullet
bullet
Listed communities
bullet
bullet
bullet
bullet
bullet
bullet
bullet
bullet
bullet
bullet
bullet
bullet
bullet

Wolverhampton Intellectual Repository and E-Theses > School of Sport, Performing Arts and Leisure > Research Centre for Sport, Exercise and Performance > Exercise and Health > Adjusting bone mass for differences in projected bone area and other confounding variables: an allometric perspective.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/2436/7758
    Del.icio.us     LinkedIn     Citeulike     Connotea     Facebook     Stumble it!



Title: Adjusting bone mass for differences in projected bone area and other confounding variables: an allometric perspective.
Authors: Nevill, Alan M.
Holder, Roger L.
Maffulli, Nicola
Cheng, Jack C. Y.
Leung, Sophie S. S. F.
Lee, Warren T. K.
Lau, Joseph T. F.
Citation: Journal of Bone & Mineral Research, 17(4): 703-708
Publisher: American Society for Bone and Mineral Research
Issue Date: 2002
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/2436/7758
PubMed ID: 11924573
Additional Links: http://www.jbmronline.org/doi/pdf/10.1359/jbmr.2002.17.4.703?cookieSet=1
http://direct.bl.uk/bld/PlaceOrder.do?UIN=110719048&ETOC=RN&from=searchengine
Abstract: The traditional method of assessing bone mineral density (BMD; given by bone mineral content [BMC] divided by projected bone area [Ap], BMD = BMC/Ap) has come under strong criticism by various authors. Their criticism being that the projected bone "area" (Ap) will systematically underestimate the skeletal bone "volume" of taller subjects. To reduce the confounding effects of bone size, an alternative ratio has been proposed called bone mineral apparent density [BMAD = BMC/(Ap)3/2]. However, bone size is not the only confounding variable associated with BMC. Others include age, sex, body size, and maturation. To assess the dimensional relationship between BMC and projected bone area, independent of other confounding variables, we proposed and fitted a proportional allometric model to the BMC data of the L2-L4 vertebrae from a previously published study. The projected bone area exponents were greater than unity for both boys (1.43) and girls (1.02), but only the boy's fitted exponent was not different from that predicted by geometric similarity (1.5). Based on these exponents, it is not clear whether bone mass acquisition increases in proportion to the projected bone area (Ap) or an estimate of projected bone volume (Ap)3/2. However, by adopting the proposed methods, the analysis will automatically adjust BMC for differences in projected bone size and other confounding variables for the particular population being studied. Hence, the necessity to speculate as to the theoretical value of the exponent of Ap, although interesting, becomes redundant.
Type: Article
Language: en
Keywords: Bone mineral density
Bone mass
Allometric modelling
ISSN: 0884-0431
Appears in Collections: Sport, Exercise and Health Research Group
Exercise and Health
Learning and Teaching in Sport, Exercise and Performance

Files in This Item:
File Description Size Format View/Open
Nevill7.pdf104KbAdobe PDFThumbnail
View/Open

Related articles on PubMed
bullet
bullet
Differences in bone mineral in young Asian and Caucasian Americans may reflect differences in bone size.
Bhudhikanok GS, Wang MC, Eckert K, Matkin C, Marcus R, Bachrach LK
1996 Oct
bullet
bullet
bullet
See all 93 articles

All Items in WIRE are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

 

Fairtrade - Guarantees a better deal for Third World Producers

University of Wolverhampton, Wulfruna Street, Wolverhampton, WV1 1LY

Course enquiries: 0800 953 3222, General enquiries: 01902 321000,
Email: enquiries@wlv.ac.uk | Freedom of Information | Disclaimer and copyright | Website feedback | The University as a charity

OR Logo Powered by Open Repository | Cookies