Familial Resemblance of Bone Health in Maternal Lineage Pairs and Triads: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Female bone health is influenced by familial resemblance, health parameters and maturational periods (puberty and menopause); this combination has been researched using familial multi-generational cross-sectional studies. Aim: This scoping review aimed to compile bone health research which uses sexually mature (grandmother–) mother–daughter pairs (and triads) and to determine the trends in its methodologies and familial comparisons. Methods: The Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for scoping reviews was used. Extraction included study and population characteristics, methodology (with an emphasis on imaging) and family-based results. Results: Twenty-nine studies were included, and their generations were categorized into four developmental categories: late adolescent to young adult, pre-menopause, mixed-menopause, and post-menopause. Eleven different pair/triad combinations were observed; the most common was pre-menopausal daughters and post-menopausal mothers. Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) was the most utilized imaging modality, and the hip was the most imaged region of interest (ROI). Regardless of pairing, imaging modality and ROI, there was often a trend toward significant familial resemblance and heritability (h2 and h2L). Conclusion: This scoping review highlights the trends in bone health linked to familial resemblance, as well as the importance of menopause and late adolescence. This review compiles the commonalities and challenges within these studies to inform future 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 | 0.009 | 0.066 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".