The Biomechanical Basis of Bone Strength Development during Growth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding the development of the material composition and structure of bone during growth, both key determinants of bone strength, and identifying factors that regulate the development of these properties are important for developing effective lifestyle interventions to optimize peak bone strength. New imaging technologies provide the ability to measure estimates of both the material composition and structure of bone, and thus, estimates of whole bone strength. During childhood and adolescence, bone structure is altered by growth in length and width, which is associated with increases in mass, and alterations in tissue density. These processes lead to a bone with an optimal size, shape, and architecture to withstand the normal physiological loads imposed on it. Longitudinal bone growth is the result of endochondral ossification, a process that continues throughout childhood and rapidly increases during the adolescent growth spurt. Along the shaft, long bones continually grow in width, thus improving the resistance to bending forces by depositing new bone on the periosteal surface with simultaneous resorption on the endocortical surface. Sexual dimorphism in periosteal bone formation and endosteal bone resorption result in sex-specific differences in adult bone conformation. Changes in linear and periosteal growth are closely tied to changes in bone mass, with approximately one quarter of adult total body bone mineral accrued during the 2 years around the adolescent growth spurt. These structural and material changes are under mechanical regulation and influenced by the hormonal environment. Overall, bones must continually adapt their geometry and mass to withstand loads from increases in bone length, muscle mass and external forces during growth. However, the tempo, timing, and extent of such adaptations are also closely regulated by several systemic hormones.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".