Association of Modifiable Risk Factors with Bone Mineral Density among People with Distal Radius Fracture: A Cross-Sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: This study determined the extent to which modifiable risk factors (balance, muscle strength, and physical activity [PA]) explained variability in bone mineral density (BMD) among people with a recent distal radius fracture (DRF). Method: This cross-sectional study included 190 patients, aged 50–80 years, with a DRF. Participants were assessed for balance, muscle strength, PA, fracture-specific pain, and disability. Areal BMD at the femoral neck (BMD-FN) and total hip (BMD-TH) was assessed. Correlation and multiple linear regression was used to determine the contribution of modifiable risk factors to BMD. Results: Balance, handgrip strength, knee extension strength, and plantar-flexion strength had significant bivariate associations with BMD-FN. There was a weak to moderate correlation ( r = 0.25–0.40; p < 0.05) of balance and grip strength with BMD. Grip strength independently ( p < 0.05) explained 17% and 12% of the variability in BMD-FN ( n = 81) and BMD-TH ( n = 82), respectively. Stratified by age, balance ( R 2 = 0.10; p = 0.04) and grip strength ( R 2 = 0.32; p = 0.003) were independent significant predictors of BMD-FN among women aged 50–64 years and 65–80 years, respectively. Conclusions: Grip strength of the unaffected hand is independently associated with BMD-FN and BMD-TH in people with recent DRF. It may act as a surrogate for general bone health, frailty, or overall muscle strength rather than as a direct target for intervention.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".