MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2336612769 · doi:10.1096/fasebj.20.4.a561-d

MRI‐Measured Bone Marrow Adipose Tissue is Strongly Negatively Associated With DXA‐Measured Bone Mineral

2006· article· en· W2336612769 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Wei Shen, Jun Chen, Mark Punyanitya, Steven B. Heymsfield

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone and Joint Diseases
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBone mineralMedicineAdipose tissueOsteoporosisMagnetic resonance imagingNuclear medicineUrologyDual-energy X-ray absorptiometryBody mass indexInternal medicineRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent studies suggest that bone marrow adipose tissue (BMAT) might play a role in the pathogenesis of osteoporosis. Previous research using regional magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) methods to measure BMAT reported inconsistent findings on the relationship between BMAT and Dual‐Energy Absorptiometry (DXA) ‐measured bone mineral density (BMD). In the present study we evaluated 52 healthy women (age 18–88 yrs, mean±SD, 48.4 ± 17.7 yrs; BMI, 24.5 ± 4.6 kg/m 2 ) with T1‐weighted whole‐body MRI‐measured total body adipose tissue (TBAT) and pelvic BMAT using conventional image segmentation methods (sliceOmatic 4.2, Tomovision Inc., Montreal). Total body and regional BMD was measured by whole body DXA (GE Lunar DPX, software version 4.7). A high correlation was observed between pelvic BMAT and BMD (total body BMD r = −0.723, p < 0.001; pelvic BMD r = −0.627, p < 0.001). The association between BMAT and BMD remained strong even after adjusting for age, BMI, and TBAT (total body BMD r =‐0.498, p < 0.001; pelvic BMD r= −0.449, p < 0.001). Pelvic BMAT was also highly correlated with age (r = 0.723, p < 0.001) but not with TBAT (r = −0.206, p = 0.15). Conclusions: MRI‐measured BMAT is strongly correlated with DXA‐measured BMD; and additional studies are needed to establish the extent to which these observations represent biological relations or DXA measurement artifacts.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.715
Threshold uncertainty score0.966

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.224 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB JournalSame topicBone and Joint DiseasesFrench-language works237,207