Is bone tenderness, as measured by manual algometry, associated with vitamin D deficiency?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore the relationship between serum 25-hydroxycholecalciferol (25[OH]D3) and pressure-pain thresholds, as measured by algometer, in advance of a main study to determine whether PPT is a potentially cost-effective proxy measure of 25[OH]D3 status in the general population. METHODS: The cross-sectional pilot study involved a convenience sample of twenty-two subjects (10 males, 12 females), aged 18 to 67 years. All subjects consented to three trials of pressure-pain threshold readings on both tibiae and the manubrium. Serum 25[OH]D3 levels were determined from blood samples drawn post-algometry. RESULTS: The average pressure pain thresholds were 14.92 (±6.03), 15.07(±6.07), 11.10 (±6.68) for the left and right tibia and sternum, respectively. The stability between the measurements was very high with the interclass correlation coefficient (95% CI) calculated as 0.94 (0.62-1.00), 0.9 (0.81-1.00), 0.96(0.93-1.00). The Pearson correlation coefficients were 0.03 for the left tibia, 0.17 for the right tibia and 0.20 for the sternum, J Dresser, M MacIntyre, B Chisholm, GE Lawson showing a negligible correlation for the left and right tibia, but a low positive correlation for the sternum. CONCLUSION: We did not find preliminary evidence of a strong or otherwise clinically meaningful correlation between bone tenderness and manual algometry in this pilot study. Only a weak linear relationship between PPT in the sternum and serum 25[OH]D3 concentrations was found. Replication of this study is warranted in larger and more representative study populations of interest. Discussion on a number of feasibility issues is provided to inform those future studies.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".