Sexual <scp>orientation‐based</scp> disparities in bone health: Evidence of reduced bone mineral density and mineral content among sexual minority men but not women in multiple <scp>NHANES</scp> waves
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Sexual minority (SM) people experience significant stress associated with stigma, contributing to a higher rate of adverse health outcomes. Several known factors (eg, smoking) elevate risk of poor bone health, but to date little research has examined disparities in bone health among SM people. To address this, we analyzed sexual orientation differences in an available bone mineral density (BMD) cross-sectional dataset assessed via dual X-ray absorptiometry. METHODS: We combined the 2007 to 2008, 2009 to 2010, and 2013 to 2014 cycles of US National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey to examine sexual orientation-based differences in z-scored BMD in the proximal femur (greater trochanter and intertrochanter locations), bone mineral content (BMC) in the femur and spine, and osteoporosis risk among Lesbian/Gay (n = 53), Bisexual (n = 97), Same-Sex Experienced (n = 103), and Heterosexual (n = 2990) adults. RESULTS: Sexual orientation-based disparities in bone mass were observed across all anatomical sites. This effect was due to differences between heterosexual and gay men and persisted in linear regressions after adjusting for risk factors. We found differences in femoral and femoral neck BMC in heterosexual and gay men (P = .02) and in femoral, femoral neck and spinal BMC between heterosexual and bisexual women (P = .05). Sexual orientation remained significant in BMC regressions. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that SM men but not women are at greater risk for poor bone health relative to heterosexuals and this disparity is independent of the lifestyle and psychosocial risks included in our models.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".