• Admin Login
    View Item 
    •   Home
    • Faculty of Education, Health and Wellbeing
    • Faculty of Education, Health and Wellbeing
    • View Item
    •   Home
    • Faculty of Education, Health and Wellbeing
    • Faculty of Education, Health and Wellbeing
    • View Item
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    Browse

    All of WIRECommunitiesTitleAuthorsIssue DateSubmit DateSubjectsTypesJournalDepartmentPublisherThis CollectionTitleAuthorsIssue DateSubmit DateSubjectsTypesJournalDepartmentPublisher

    Administrators

    Admin Login

    Local Links

    AboutThe University LibraryOpen Access Publications PolicyDeposit LicenceCOREWIRE Copyright and Reuse Information

    Statistics

    Display statistics

    Adjusting bone mass for differences in projected bone area and other confounding variables: an allometric perspective.

    • CSV
    • RefMan
    • EndNote
    • BibTex
    • RefWorks
    Thumbnail
    Name:
    Nevill7.pdf
    Size:
    104.3Kb
    Format:
    PDF
    Download
    Average rating
     
       votes
    Cast your vote
    You can rate an item by clicking the amount of stars they wish to award to this item. When enough users have cast their vote on this item, the average rating will also be shown.
    Star rating
     
    Your vote was cast
    Thank you for your feedback
    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.
    Issue Date
    2002
    Submitted date
    2007-01-25
    
    Metadata
    Show full item record
    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.
    Citation
    Journal of Bone & Mineral Research, 17(4): 703-708
    Publisher
    American Society for Bone and Mineral Research
    URI
    http://hdl.handle.net/2436/7758
    PubMed ID
    11924573
    Additional Links
    http://direct.bl.uk/bld/PlaceOrder.do?UIN=110719048&ETOC=RN&from=searchenginehttp://www.jbmronline.org/doi/pdf/10.1359/jbmr.2002.17.4.703?cookieSet=1
    Type
    Journal article
    Language
    en
    ISSN
    0884-0431
    Collections
    Faculty of Education, Health and Wellbeing

    entitlement

    Related articles

    • Vertebral bone mass, size, and volumetric density in women with spinal fractures.
    • Authors: Duan Y, Parfitt Am, Seeman E
    • Issue date: 1999 Oct
    • Effects of skeletal size of the lumbar spine on areal bone density, volumetric bone density, and the diagnosis of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women in China.
    • Authors: Liao EY, Wu XP, Liao HJ, Zhang H, Peng J
    • Issue date: 2004
    • Modeling physiological and anthropometric variables known to vary with body size and other confounding variables.
    • Authors: Nevill AM, Bate S, Holder RL
    • Issue date: 2005
    • Bone density interpretation and relevance in Caucasian children aged 9-17 years of age: insights from a population-based fracture study.
    • Authors: Jones G, Ma D, Cameron F
    • Issue date: 2006 Apr-Jun
    • Bone geometry and density in the skeleton of pre-pubertal gymnasts and school children.
    • Authors: Ward KA, Roberts SA, Adams JE, Mughal MZ
    • Issue date: 2005 Jun

    DSpace software (copyright © 2002 - 2021)  DuraSpace
    Quick Guide | Contact Us
    Open Repository is a service operated by 
    Atmire NV
     

    Export search results

    The export option will allow you to export the current search results of the entered query to a file. Different formats are available for download. To export the items, click on the button corresponding with the preferred download format.

    By default, clicking on the export buttons will result in a download of the allowed maximum amount of items.

    To select a subset of the search results, click "Selective Export" button and make a selection of the items you want to export. The amount of items that can be exported at once is similarly restricted as the full export.

    After making a selection, click one of the export format buttons. The amount of items that will be exported is indicated in the bubble next to export format.