MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1950446466 · doi:10.1136/bjsm.2004.014498

Bone strength index in adolescent girls: does physical activity make a difference?

2005· article· en· W1950446466 on OpenAlexaff
David Greene, Géraldine Naughton, Julie Briody, Allan Kemp, Helen Woodhead, L Corrigan

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Sports Medicine · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and osteoporosis research
Canadian institutionsLaurentian University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndex (typography)MedicinePhysical therapyPsychologyComputer scienceWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Bone strength index (BSI) combines bone mineral and bone biomechanical properties to measure resistance to bending. This index may have greater clinical significance than the more often described markers of bone mineral content (BMC), areal density, or geometry alone and, in turn, may show a stronger relation to fracture risk. The BSI is the product of volumetric cortical bone mineral density (BMD) and cross sectional moment of inertia within a region of interest. Calculations combine dual energy x ray absorptiometry and magnetic resonance imaging technologies and provide a useful, non-invasive measure of in vivo bone strength. OBJECTIVES: (a) To compare BSI in adolescent female middle distance runners and age matched controls; (b) to examine factors predictive of BSI in adolescent girls. METHODS: Twenty adolescent female middle distance runners (mean (SD) age 16 (1.7) years, physical activity 8.9 (2.1) hours a week) and 20 female controls (age 16 (1.8) years, physical activity 2.0 (0.07) hours a week) were recruited. To calculate BSI, a region of interest representing 10% of the mid-distal tibia was analysed for dual energy x ray absorptiometry derived BMC and was combined with bone geometry and biomechanical properties obtained by magnetic resonance imaging assessments. Potential predictors of BSI were also examined. RESULTS: Independent t tests showed that BMC (p = 0.028), cortical bone volume (p = 0.002), volumetric cortical BMD (p = 0.004), cross sectional moments of inertia (p = 0.005), and BSI (p = 0.002) were higher in the distal tibia of athletes than of controls. The strongest predictor of BSI was hours of physical activity a week (R2 = 0.46). CONCLUSIONS: Athletes habitually exposed to high training loads displayed greater BSI at the distal tibia than controls. The results further confirm BSI as a significant and discerning marker in musculoskeletal health in adolescent girls engaged in high and low mechanical loading.

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)0.002
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.303 · 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

Citations60
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of Sports MedicineSame topicBone health and osteoporosis researchFrench-language works237,207