Abnormalities in Muscle Density and Muscle Function in Hypophosphatemic Rickets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Animal studies suggest that hypophosphatemic rickets (HPR) is associated with muscle function deficits, but it is unknown whether humans with HPR have a muscle disorder. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to assess calf muscle size and density (an indicator of muscle quality) and lower extremity muscle function in patients with HPR. SETTING: The study was carried out in the outpatient department of a pediatric orthopedic hospital. PATIENTS AND OTHER PARTICIPANTS: Participants included 34 individuals with HPR (6-60 yr; nine males) and 34 age- and gender-matched controls. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Calf muscle parameters (muscle cross-sectional area and density) were measured by peripheral quantitative computed tomography. Lower extremity muscle function (peak force per body weight and peak power per body mass) was measured by jumping mechanography through five tests with different levels of difficulty: multiple two-legged hopping, multiple one-legged hopping, single two-legged jump, chair-rise test, and heel-rise test. RESULTS: Compared with age- and gender-matched controls, patients with HPR had normal muscle size (P = 0.58) but lower muscle density (P = 0.008) and lower peak muscle force and power (P < 0.001 in each test). Muscle function tests were also lower in the subgroup of patients with straight legs (n = 13) than in controls, even though patients with straight legs had higher muscle function test results than patients with severe leg deformities. CONCLUSIONS: The present study suggests that muscle weakness is a clinical feature of HPR. Lower muscle quality and limb deformities contribute to this functional deficit.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".