Gains in relative cortical area during growth and their relationship to nutrition, body size, and physical activity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: In studies of growth in the past, low percentage of cortical area (%CA) is commonly attributed to poor general health, due to factors including poor nutrition, low socioeconomic status, or other physiological stressors. What constitutes low relative cortical dimensions has not been established across a diverse range of human skeletal samples. This study examines %CA in a large immature skeletal sample to establish typical variation in humans with consideration of both body mass and subsistence strategy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Percentage of cortical area was calculated at the midshaft of the humerus, femur, and tibia in seven skeletal samples. Age at death was estimated from dental development, and body mass from bone dimensions. Patterns of %CA with age and log-transformed body mass were examined in the pooled sample and compared among samples using LOESS regression, Welch's ANOVA, and Kruskal-Wallis tests. RESULTS: Across all samples, %CA displays a generally non-linear pattern, but variation in %CA with age was high, particularly in samples with lower levels of %CA. There was no relationship between %CA and age-adjusted body mass. DISCUSSION: The lack of a relationship between %CA and body mass suggests that %CA should not be used as an indicator of mechanical loading. The variation present across samples implies that appositional bone growth is affected by physiological stress in varying ways. Without a deeper understanding of what is "typical" for long bone development, it is impossible to draw conclusions about individual or population level health.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".