MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Effect of Environmental Factors and Gender on the Heritability of Bone Mineral Density and Bone Size

2006· article· en· W2034525997 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Human Genetics · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and osteoporosis research
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
FundersQueen Mary University of London
KeywordsHeritabilityBone mineralOsteoporosisAnalysis of varianceBone densityInternal medicineMedicineBiologyEndocrinologyDemographyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bone mineral density (BMD), a risk factor for osteoporosis, is believed to be under genetic control. The effect of environmental factors and gender on the heritability of BMD and bone size is ill-defined. In this study, heritability estimates (h2) were determined in 3,320 southern Chinese subjects from 1,019 families using the variance components model. The h2 for age, weight and height-adjusted BMD was 0.63-0.71 for females, and 0.74-0.79 for males; and for bone size, 0.44-0.64 for females and 0.32-0.86 for males. Adjustment for lifestyle factors including calcium and phytoestrogen intake, exercise, smoking and alcohol consumption altered the h2 differently in males and females. The proportion of variance in BMD and bone size explained by all covariates varied between skeletal sites, but was consistently greater in females than males. A significant gender difference was observed in the genetic variance of BMD and bone size at the hip but not the spine. In conclusion, a gender difference was observed in the degree of heritability of BMD and bone size at specific skeletal sites. Environmental influences contributed variably at different sites in the two sexes.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score0.282

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.293 · 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