Relationship between body mass, lean mass, fat mass, and limb bone cross‐sectional geometry: Implications for estimating body mass and physique from the skeleton
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Estimating body mass from skeletal dimensions is widely practiced, but methods for estimating its components (lean and fat mass) are poorly developed. The ability to estimate these characteristics would offer new insights into the evolution of body composition and its variation relative to past and present health. This study investigates the potential of long bone cross-sectional properties as predictors of body, lean, and fat mass. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Humerus, femur and tibia midshaft cross-sectional properties were measured by peripheral quantitative computed tomography in sample of young adult women (n = 105) characterized by a range of activity levels. Body composition was estimated from bioimpedance analysis. RESULTS: Lean mass correlated most strongly with both upper and lower limb bone properties (r values up to 0.74), while fat mass showed weak correlations (r ≤ 0.29). Estimation equations generated from tibial midshaft properties indicated that lean mass could be estimated relatively reliably, with some improvement using logged data and including bone length in the models (minimum standard error of estimate = 8.9%). Body mass prediction was less reliable and fat mass only poorly predicted (standard errors of estimate ≥11.9% and >33%, respectively). DISCUSSION: Lean mass can be predicted more reliably than body mass from limb bone cross-sectional properties. The results highlight the potential for studying evolutionary trends in lean mass from skeletal remains, and have implications for understanding the relationship between bone morphology and body mass or composition.
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 | 0.016 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".