Spatial Heterogeneity in the Response of the Proximal Femur to Two Lower-Body Resistance Exercise Regimens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding the skeletal effects of resistance exercise involves delineating the spatially heterogeneous response of bone to load distributions from different muscle contractions. Bone mineral density (BMD) analyses may obscure these patterns by averaging data from tissues with variable mechanoresponse. To assess the proximal femoral response to resistance exercise, we acquired pretraining and posttraining quantitative computed tomography (QCT) images in 22 subjects (25-55 years, 9 males, 13 females) performing two resistance exercises for 16 weeks. One group (SQDL, n = 7) performed 4 sets each of squats and deadlifts, a second group (ABADD, n = 8) performed 4 sets each of standing hip abductions and adductions, and a third group (COMBO, n = 7) performed two sets each of squat/deadlift and abduction/adduction exercise. Subjects exercised three times weekly, and the load was adjusted each session to maximum effort. We used voxel-based morphometry (VBM) to visualize BMD distributions. Hip strength computations used finite element modeling (FEM) with stance and fall loading conditions. We used QCT analysis for cortical and trabecular BMD, and cortical tissue volume. For muscle size and density, we analyzed the cross-sectional area (CSA) and mean Hounsfield unit (HU) in the hip extensor, flexor, abductor, and adductor muscle groups. Whereas SQDL increased vertebral BMD, femoral neck cortical BMD and volume, and stance hip strength, ABADD increased trochanteric cortical volume. The COMBO group showed no changes in any parameter. VBM showed different effects of ABADD and SQDL exercise, with the former causing focal changes of trochanteric cortical bone, and the latter showing diffuse changes in the femoral neck and head. ABADD exercise increased adductor CSA and HU, whereas SQDL exercise increased the hip extensor CSA and HU. In conclusion, we observed different proximal femoral bone and muscle tissue responses to SQDL and ABADD exercise. This study supports VBM and volumetric QCT (vQCT) to quantify the spatially heterogeneous effects of types of muscle contractions on bone.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".