Physical activity positively predicts bone architecture and bone strength in adolescent males and females
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Physical activity (PA) has positive effects on bone accrual and geometry in children during growth. However, we do not know how PA influences adaptations in bone architecture during growth. We evaluated the contribution of PA to bone density, architecture and strength in adolescents. METHODS: We used HR-pQCT (XtremeCT, Scanco Medical) to assess cross-sectional moments of inertia [Imin, Imax (mm⁴)], total bone density (Tt.Dn, mg HA/cm³), total bone area (Tt.Ar, mm²), cortical bone density (Ct.Dn, mg HA/cm³), cortical thickness (Ct.Th, μm), trabecular bone density (Tb.Dn, mg HA/cm³), trabecular number (Tb.N, mm⁻¹) and trabecular thickness (Tb.Th, μm) at the distal tibia in 146 male and 132 female participants (15-20 years). We evaluated the contribution of impact loading PA (ImpactPA) and non-impact loading PA (NoimpactPA) on bone (p < 0.05). RESULTS: ImpactPA explained 10% of variance in Imin (p = 0.000), and 12% of variance in Imax (p = 0.000) in male participants. In male participants, ImpactPA explained 6% of variance in Tt.Ar (p = 0.003). In female participants, ImpactPA explained 4% of variance in Tt.Dn (p = 0.011), 5% of variance in Tb.Dn (p = 0.004) and 8% of variance in Tb.N (p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that ImpactPA is significantly associated with bone architecture and bone strength in adolescent males and females.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".