Effect of abdominal tissue thickness on trabecular bone score and fracture risk in adults with diabetes: the Manitoba BMD registry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Individuals with type 2 diabetes have lower trabecular bone score (TBS) and increased fracture risk despite higher bone mineral density. However, measures of trabecular microarchitecture from high-resolution peripheral computed tomography are not lower in type 2 diabetes. We hypothesized that confounding effects of abdominal tissue thickness may explain this discrepancy, since central obesity is a risk factor for diabetes and also artifactually lowers TBS. This hypothesis was tested in individuals aged 40 years and older from a large DXA registry, stratified by sex and diabetes status. When DXA-measured abdominal tissue thickness was not included as a covariate, men without diabetes had lower TBS than women without diabetes (mean difference -0.074, P < .001). TBS was lower in women with versus without diabetes (mean difference -0.037, P < .001), and men with versus without diabetes (mean difference -0.007, P = .042). When adjusted for tissue thickness these findings reversed, TBS became greater in men versus women without diabetes (mean difference +0.053, P < .001), in women with versus without diabetes (mean difference +0.008, P < .001), and in men with versus without diabetes (mean difference +0.014, P < .001). During mean 8.7 years observation, incident major osteoporotic fractures were seen in 7048 (9.6%). Adjusted for multiple covariates except tissue thickness, TBS predicted fracture in all subgroups with no significant diabetes interaction. When further adjusted for tissue thickness, HR per SD lower TBS remained significant and even increased slightly. In conclusion, TBS predicts fractures independent of other clinical risk factors in both women and men, with and without diabetes. Excess abdominal tissue thickness in men and individuals with type 2 diabetes may artifactually lower TBS using the current algorithm, which reverses after accounting for tissue thickness. This supports ongoing efforts to update the TBS algorithm to directly account for the effects of abdominal tissue thickness for improved fracture risk prediction.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".