Reexamining the Surfaces of Bone in Boys and Girls During Adolescent Growth: A 12-Year Mixed Longitudinal pQCT Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We revisit Stanley Garn's theory related to sex differences in endocortical and periosteal apposition during adolescence using a 12-year mixed longitudinal study design. We used peripheral quantitative computed tomography to examine bone parameters in 230 participants (110 boys, 120 girls; aged 11.0 years at baseline). We assessed total (Tt.Ar, mm(2)), cortical (Ct.Ar, mm(2)), and medullary canal area (Me.Ar, mm(2)), Ct.Ar/Tt.Ar, cortical bone mineral density (Ct.BMD, mg/cm(3)), and polar strength-strain index (SSIp , mm(3)) at the tibial midshaft (50% site). We used annual measures of height and chronological age to identify age at peak height velocity (APHV) for each participant. We compared annual accrual rates of bone parameters between boys and girls, aligned on APHV using a linear mixed effects model. At APHV, boys demonstrated greater Tt.Ar (ratio = 1.27; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.21, 1.32), Ct.Ar (1.24 [1.18, 1.30]), Me.Ar (1.31 [1.22, 1.40]), and SSIp (1.36 [1.28, 1.45]) and less Ct.Ar/Tt.Ar (0.98 [0.96, 1.00]) and Ct.BMD (0.97 [0.96, 0.97]) compared with girls. Boys and girls demonstrated periosteal bone formation and net bone loss at the endocortical surface. Compared with girls, boys demonstrated greater annual accrual rates pre-APHV for Tt.Ar (1.18 [1.02, 1.34]) and Me.Ar (1.34 [1.11, 1.57]), lower annual accrual rates pre-APHV for Ct.Ar/Tt.Ar (0.56 [0.29, 0.83]) and Ct.BMD (-0.07 [-0.17, 0.04]), and similar annual accrual rates pre-APHV for Ct.Ar (1.10 [0.94, 1.26]) and SSIp (1.14 [0.98, 1.30]). Post-APHV, boys demonstrated similar annual accrual rates for Ct.Ar/Tt.Ar (1.01 [0.71, 1.31]) and greater annual accrual rates for all other bone parameters compared with girls (ratio = 1.23 to 2.63; 95% CI 1.11 to 3.45). Our findings support those of Garn and others of accelerated periosteal apposition during adolescence, more evident in boys than girls. However, our findings challenge the notion of greater endocortical apposition in girls, suggesting instead that girls experience diminished endocortical resorption compared with boys.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".