Higher Hand Grip Strength Is Associated With Greater Radius Bone Size and Strength in Older Men and Women: The Framingham Osteoporosis Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Mechanical loading by muscles elicits anabolic responses from bone, thus age‐related declines in muscle strength may contribute to bone fragility in older adults. We used high‐resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography (HR‐pQCT) to determine the association between grip strength and distal radius bone density, size, morphology, and microarchitecture, as well as bone strength estimated by micro–finite element analysis (μFEA), among older men and women. Participants included 508 men and 651 women participating in the Framingham Offspring Study with grip strength measured in 2011–2014 and HR‐pQCT scanning in 2012–2015. Separately for men and women, analysis of covariance was used to compare HR‐pQCT measures among grip strength quartiles and to test for linear trends, adjusting for age, height, weight, smoking, and physical activity. Mean age was 70 years (range, 50–95 years), and men had higher mean grip strength than the women (37 kg vs. 21 kg). Bone strength estimated by μFEA‐calculated failure load was higher with greater grip strength in both men ( p < 0.01) and women ( p = 0.04). Higher grip strength was associated with larger cross‐sectional area in both men and women ( p < 0.01), with differences in area of 6% and 11% between the lowest to highest grip strength quartiles in men and women, respectively. Cortical thickness was positively associated with grip strength among men only ( p = 0.03). Grip strength was not associated with volumetric BMD (vBMD) in men. Conversely, there was a trend for lower total vBMD with higher grip strength among women ( p = 0.02), though pairwise comparisons did not reveal any statistically significant differences in total vBMD among grip strength quartiles. Bone microarchitecture (cortical porosity, trabecular thickness, trabecular number) was not associated with grip strength in either men or women. Our findings suggest that the positive association between hand grip strength and distal radius bone strength may be driven primarily by bone size. © 2021 The Authors. JBMR Plus published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".