MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W126878006

Age-predicted values for lumbar spine, proximal femur, and whole-body bone mineral density: results from a population of normal children aged 3 to 18 years.

2007· article· en· W126878006 on OpenAlexaff
Colin E. Webber, Lesley Beaumont, Judy Morrison, Alessandra Sala, Ronald D. Barr

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and osteoporosis research
Canadian institutionsHamilton Health Sciences
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBone mineralFemurLumbar spinePopulationLumbarDensitometryOsteoporosisInternal medicineAnatomySurgery
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We measured areal bone mineral density (BMD) with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) at the lumbar spine and the proximal femur and for the total body in 179 subjects (91 girls and 88 boys) with no known disorders that might affect calcium metabolism. Results are also reported for lumbar spine bone mineral content (BMC) and for the derived variable, bone mineral apparent density (BMAD). Expected-for-age values for each variable were derived for boys and girls by using an expression that represented the sum of a steady increase due to growth plus a rapid increase associated with puberty. Normal ranges were derived by assuming that at least 95% of children would be included within 1.96 population standard deviations (SD) of the expected-for-age value. The normal range for lumbar spine BMD derived from our population of children was compared with previously published normal ranges based on results obtained from different bone densitometers in diverse geographic locations. The extent of agreement between the various normal ranges indicates that the derived expressions can be used for reporting routine spine, femur, and whole-body BMD measurements in children and adolescents. The greatest difference in expected-for-age values among the various studies was that arising from intermanufacturer variability. The application of published conversion factors derived from DXA measurements in adults did not account fully for these differences, especially in younger children.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.269 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations23
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicBone health and osteoporosis research→French-language works237,207→