Bone mineral density, milk intake and physical activity in boys who suffered forearm fractures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare boys with and without forearm fracture in terms of their bone mineral density, intake of milk and dairy products, and physical activity. METHODS: There were 23 boys in each group (aged between 7 and 13 years). They were submitted to bone densitometry with dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) of the forearm (opposite side of the fracture). Participants answered questionnaires about their intake of milk and dairy products, and about their physical activity. RESULTS: The mean+/-SD of the bone mineral density of the radial and ulnar distal diaphysis in the case group (0.430+/-0.038 g.cm(-2)) was significantly lower (p = 0.018) than that of the control group (0.458+/-0.039 g.cm(-2)). Likewise, the mean of the distal metaphysis of the forearm was 0.309+/-0.033 g.cm(-2) in the case group and 0.349+/-0.054 g.cm(-2) in the control group (p = 0.004). Milk intake (1.5+/-1.2 cups a day) was significantly lower in the case group (p = 0.001) than in the control group (2.7+/-1.2 cups a day). The number of boys who practiced after-school physical activity was significantly lower (p = 0.017) in the case group (six boys = 26%) than in the control group (15 boys = 53%). CONCLUSION: Boys who suffered forearm fracture showed lower bone mineral density compared with the control group. In the case group, milk intake and physical activity were lower than in the control group.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".