MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3139156869 · doi:10.3390/ijerph18063154

Testing the Functional Model of Bone Development: Direct and Mediating Role of Muscle Strength on Bone Properties in Growing Youth

2021· article· en· W3139156869 on OpenAlexafffund
Izabella A. Ludwa, Kevin Mongeon, Malcolm Sanderson, Luis Gracia‐Marco, Panagiota Klentrou

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and osteoporosis research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaBrock University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsIsometric exerciseGrip strengthBone resorptionMedicinePhysical therapyEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examines the functional model of bone development in peri-pubertal boys and girls. Specifically, we implemented a mixed-longitudinal design and hierarchical structural models to provide experimental evidence in support of the conceptual functional model of bone development, postulating that the primary mechanical stimulus of bone strength development is muscle force. To this end, we measured radial and tibial bone properties (speed of sound, SOS), isometric grip and knee extensors strength, bone resorption (urinary NTX concentration), body mass index (BMI), somatic maturity (years from peak height velocity) and skeletal maturity (bone age) in 180 children aged 8-16 years. Measurements were repeated 2-4 times over a period of 3 years. The multilevel structural equation modeling of 406 participant-session observations revealed similar results for radial and tibial SOS. Muscle strength (i.e., grip strength for the radial and knee extension for tibial model) and NTX have a significant direct effect on bone SOS (β = 0.29 and -0.18, respectively). Somatic maturity had a direct impact on muscle strength (β = 0.24) and both a direct and indirect effect on bone SOS (total effect, β = 0.30). Physical activity and BMI also had a significant direct impact on bone properties, (β = 0.06 and -0.18, respectively), and an additional significant indirect effect through muscle strength (β = 0.01 and 0.05, respectively) with small differences per bone site and sex. Muscle strength fully mediated the impact of bone age (β = 0.14) while there was no significant effect of energy intake on either muscle strength or bone SOS. In conclusion, our results support the functional model of bone development in that muscle strength and bone metabolism directly affect bone development while the contribution of maturity, physical activity, and other modulators such as BMI, on bone development is additionally modulated through their effect on muscle strength.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.145
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.197 · 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
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health→Same topicBone health and osteoporosis research→French-language works237,207→