MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1980243584 · doi:10.1359/jbmr.070606

Heritability of BMD of Femoral Neck and Lumbar Spine: A Multivariate Twin Study of Finnish Men

2007· article· en· W1980243584 on OpenAlexaff
Tapio Videman, Esko Levälahti, Michele C. Battié, Riitta Simonen, Esko Vanninen, Jaakko Kaprio

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Bone and Mineral Research · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and osteoporosis research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNational Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases
KeywordsHeritabilityLean body massTwin studyFemoral neckBivariate analysisMedicineCovariateBody mass indexInternal medicineBiologyStatisticsOsteoporosisGeneticsBody weightMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

UNLABELLED: Of the 80% variation in BMD among male twins that is caused by genetics, part was explained by genetic influences on lifting strength and lean body mass/height. Lifting strength was significant in both the femoral and spine BMD and body weight only for lumbar BMD. INTRODUCTION: The dominant role of heritability in BMD has been shown in twin studies among women. However, the mechanisms of genetic influences are poorly understood. BMD is associated with lean body mass and muscle strength, which both have a genetic component, but the relative effects of muscle strength and lean body mass/height on the total genetic and environmental variations influencing BMD of men are unclear. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Measurements of BMD from a DXA scanner on a representative sample of 147 monozygotic and 153 dizygotic male twin pairs (age, 35-70 yr) were related to a variety of anthropometric and behavioral covariates and interview data. Data were analyzed with univariate modeling of genetic characteristics, bivariate modeling of covariates that were significant in univariate models, and multivariate modeling of the simultaneous effects of significant covariates from the bivariate models. RESULTS: Heritability influences were estimated to account for 75% of the variance in femoral BMD and 83% in lumbar BMD. Univariate and bivariate modeling showed that, of the factors studied, only lifting force and lean body mass/height had statistically significant influences. Of the total genetic variation in femoral BMD, lifting force explained 9%, and lean body mass/height 18%; the proportions for lumbar BMD were 9% and 11%, respectively. Of the total environmental variation, the correlation with isokinetic lifting force explained 9% for femoral BMD and 10% for lumbar BMD. The genetic correlations between lifting force and femoral and lumbar BMD were approximately 0.3, as were the environmental correlations of isokinetic lifting force and femoral and lumbar BMD and of lean body mass/height and femoral BMD. The environmental correlation of lean body mass/height and femoral BMD was not significant. CONCLUSIONS: Lifting force had effects on both femoral and lumbar BMD. Body weight was important, but only for lumbar BMD. Muscle strength may have the best potential for modification among behavioral factors to increase both femoral and lumbar BMD.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.441
Teacher spread0.361 · 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

Citations71
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Bone and Mineral ResearchSame topicBone health and osteoporosis researchFrench-language works237,207