Is greater lumbar vertebral BMD associated with more disk degeneration? A study using µCT and discography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is well documented that osteoarthritis is associated with greater BMD in peripheral extremities. Yet the relationship between vertebral BMD and disk degeneration (DD) remains controversial in the lumbar spine, which may be due largely to the inadequacies of BMD and DD measures. Aiming to clarify the association between vertebral BMD and adjacent DD, we studied 137 cadaveric lumbar vertebrae and 209 corresponding intervertebral disks from the spines of 48 white men aged 21 to 64 years. DD was evaluated using discography. The vertebrae were scanned using a micro-computed tomography (µCT) system to obtain volumetric BMD for the whole vertebra, the vertebral body, the vertebral body excluding osteophytes, and the vertebral body excluding osteophytes and endplates. A random effects model was used to examine the association between the different definitions of vertebral BMD and adjacent DD. No significant association was found between the BMD of the whole vertebra and adjacent DD. However, when the posterior elements were excluded, there was a significant association between greater vertebral body BMD and more severe degeneration in the disk cranial to the vertebra. This association remained after further excluding osteophytes and endplates from the vertebral body BMD measurements. Also, a trend of greater BMD of the vertebral body associated with more adjacent DD was evident. These results clarify the association between vertebral BMD and DD and specifically indicate that it is higher BMD of the vertebral body, not the entire vertebra, that is associated with more severe adjacent DD. This association may be obscured by the posterior elements and is not confounded by osteophytes and endplate sclerosis.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".