Strength Indices of the Proximal Femur and Shaft in Prepubertal Female Gymnasts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION/PURPOSE: The role of impact loading activity on bone mass is well established; however, there are little data on the effects of exercise on bone geometry and indices of bone strength. The primary purpose of this study was to compare indices of bone strength at the proximal femur (PF) between elite premenarcheal gymnasts (N= 30) and age-matched controls (N= 30). METHODS: Structural properties of the proximal femur were derived from the hip analyses program and included measurement of subperiosteal width, endosteal diameter, cross-sectional area, bone mineral density, cross-section moment of inertia (CSMI), and section modulus (Z). These parameters were measured for two regions of the PF: the narrow neck (NN), and the shaft (S). In addition, a strength index (S-SI) was calculated at the shaft by dividing the Z at the shaft by the femur length. A secondary purpose was to compare bone mineral content (BMC) values at the total body, lumbar spine, and three sites at the PF (neck, trochanter, and total) between the groups. All dependent values were compared adjusting for height and weight using an ANCOVA procedure and for relative lean body mass. RESULTS The gymnasts had significantly greater size-adjusted strength indices (CSMI, Z, and SI) at the NN and S. Gymnasts also had significantly greater size-adjusted BMC at all sites investigated. However, these differences disappeared when adjusted for relative lean body mass. CONCLUSION: When adjusted for body size, gymnasts had significantly greater indices of both axial strength and bending strength at the NN region of the PF and S, as well as a greater bone SI at the femoral shaft. These differences may be related to greater relative lean body mass attained in gymnastics training.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".