MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2739044551 · doi:10.1002/jbmr.3200

Bone Strength Estimated by Micro-Finite Element Analysis (µFEA) Is Heritable and Shares Genetic Predisposition With Areal BMD: The Framingham Study

2017· article· en· W2739044551 on OpenAlexaff
David Karasik, Serkalem Demissie, Darlene Lu, Kerry E Broe, Steven K. Boyd, Ching‐Ti Liu, Yi‐Hsiang Hsu, Mary Bouxsein, Douglas P. Kiel

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Bone and Mineral Research · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and osteoporosis research
Canadian institutionsAlberta Bone and Joint Health InstituteUniversity of Calgary
FundersNational Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases
KeywordsQuantitative computed tomographyBone mineralFramingham Heart StudyTibiaHeritabilityMedicineBone densityFemoral neckOsteopeniaDensitometryInternal medicineOsteoporosisSurgeryBiologyFramingham Risk ScoreGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Genetic factors contribute to the risk of bone fractures, partly because of effects on bone strength. High-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography (HR-pQCT) estimates bone strength using micro-finite element analysis (µFEA). The goal of this study was to investigate if the bone failure load estimated by HR-pQCT-based µFEA is heritable and to what extent it shares genetic regulation with areal bone mineral density (aBMD). Bone microarchitecture was measured by HR-pQCT at the ultradistal tibia and ultradistal radius in adults from the Framingham Heart Study (n = 1087, mean age 72 years; 57% women). Radial and tibial failure load in compression were estimated by µFEA. Femoral neck (FN) and ultradistal forearm (UD) aBMD were measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). Heritability (h2) of failure load and aBMD and genetic correlations between them was estimated adjusting for covariates (age and sex). Failure load values at the non-weight-bearing ultradistal radius and at the weight-bearing ultradistal tibia were highly correlated (r = 0.906; p < 0.001). Estimates of h2 adjusted for covariates were 0.522 for the radius and 0.497 for the tibia. Additional adjustment for height did not impact on the h2 results, but adjustment for aBMD at the UD and FN somewhat decreased h2 point estimates: 0.222 and 0.380 for radius and tibia, respectively. In bivariate analysis, there was a high phenotypic and genetic correlation between covariate-adjusted failure load at the radius and UD aBMD (ρP = 0.826, ρG = 0.954, respectively), whereas environmental correlations were lower (ρE = 0.696), all highly significant (p < 0.001). Similar correlations were observed between tibial failure load and femoral neck aBMD (ρP = 0.577, ρG = 0.703, both p < 0.001; ρE = 0.432, p < 0.05). These data from adult members of families from a population-based cohort suggest that bone strength of distal extremities estimated by micro-finite element analysis is heritable and shares some genetic composition with areal BMD, regardless of the skeletal site. © 2017 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.344 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations6
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Bone and Mineral ResearchSame topicBone health and osteoporosis researchFrench-language works237,207