A longitudinal analysis of sex differences in bone mineral accrual in healthy 8-19-year-old boys and girls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although early in life there is little discernible difference in bone mass between boys and girls, at puberty sex differences are observed. It is uncertain if these differences represent differences in bone mass or just differences in anthropometric dimensions. AIM: The study aimed to identify whether sex independently affects bone mineral content (BMC) accrual in growing boys and girls. Three sites are investigated: total body (TB), femoral neck (FN) and lumbar spine (LS). SUBJECTS AND METHODS: 85 boys and 67 girls were assessed annually for seven consecutive years. BMC was assessed by dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). Biological age was defined as years from age at peak height velocity (PHV). Data were analysed using a hierarchical (random effects) modelling approach. RESULTS: When biological age, body size and body composition were controlled, boys had statistically significantly higher TB and FN BMC at all maturity levels (p < 0.05). No independent sex differences were found at the LS (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Although a statistical significant sex effect is observed, it is less than the error of the measurement, and thus sex difference are debatable. In general, sex difference are explained by anthropometric difference.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".