ARE GAINS IN BONE MINERAL ACCURAL OBSERVED FOLLOWING 20- MONTH INTERVENTION MAINTAINED AFTER ONE YEAR
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND Our laboratory reported a greater increase in bone mineral at the femoral neck (4.6%) and at the lumbar spine (3.7%) following a 20 month intervention (10 min, 3x/week) in intervention girls compared with controls. Whether this increase is maintained following withdrawal of the targeted exercise stimulus is uncertain. PURPOSE To determine whether the bone mineral accrual advantage is maintained one year after cessation of the program. METHODS A subset of girls (11.8 ± 0.49yrs, n = 23 intervention (Int), 30 control (Con)) from the original Healthy Bones II Study (n = 191), were re-assessed one year after withdrawal of the high impact, circuit intervention. All children performed regular activities and PE following withdrawal of the program. We evaluated bone mineral content (g) at the femoral neck (FN) and lumbar spine (LS) with DXA (Hologic QDR 4500). We assessed height (cm), weight (kg) and Tanner staging with standard techniques. Physical activity and calcium intake were assessed by questionnaire. The primary outcome measures were 12 month adjusted change in BMC (g) and percent change. Data were analysed using ANCOVA, adjusting for ‘20 month’ (end of intervention) bone mineral and height, height change, final Tanner stage and physical activity. RESULTS Girls previously in Int and Con groups were similar for height (152.9 ± 7.9 cm), weight (46.7 ± 10.4kg) and maturity (81% in Tanner stage 2/3) and were performing similar amounts of physical activity at 20 months. Change in these variables over the follow-up period were similar between groups. Results of ANCOVA showed no difference between groups for adjusted change in BMC (g) during the follow up year at either the LS (Int = 6.7, Con = 6.1 NS) or the FN (Int = 19.1 Con = 17.7 NS). There was also no difference between groups in percent change BMC at the LS (Int = 0.21 Con = 0.14 NS) or FN (Int = 6.1 Con = 4.5 NS). CONCLUSION The benefits of a 20 month intervention are not maintained one year after removal of the stimulus in this cohort. Exercise must be maintained if bone mineral accural benefits are to remain.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 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 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".