Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 375

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Age-related patterns of trabecular and cortical bone loss differ between sexes and skeletal sites: A population-based HR-pQCT study

Open access
Macdonald, Heather M, Nishiyama, Kyle K, Kang, Jian, Hanley, David A, Boyd, Steven K·2011·Journal of Bone and Mineral Research

Abstract

In this cross-sectional study, we aimed to predict age-related changes in bone microarchitecture and strength at the distal radius (DR) and distal tibia (DT) in 644 Canadian adults (n = 442 women and 202 men) aged 20 to 99 years. We performed a standard morphologic analysis of the DR and DT with high-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography (pQCT) and used finite-element analysis (FEA) to estimate bone strength (failure load) and the load distribution. We also calculated a DR load-to-strength ratio as an estimate of forearm fracture risk. Total bone area, which was 33% larger in young men at both sites, changed similarly with age in women and men at the DT but increased 17% more in men than in women at the DR (p < .001). Trabecular number and thickness (Tb.Th) were 7% to 20% higher in young men than in young women at both sites, and with the exception of Tb.Th at the DR, which declined more with age in men (−16%) than in women (−2%, p < .01), the age-related decline in these outcomes was similar in women and in men. In the cortex, porosity (Ct.Po) was 31% to 44% lower in young women than in young men but increased 92% to 176% more with age in women than in men (p < .001). The DR cortex carried 14% more load in young women than in young men, and the percentage of load carried by the DR cortex did not change with age in women but declined by 17% in men (p < .01). FEA-estimated bone strength was 34% to 47% greater in young men, but the predicted change with age was similar in both sexes. In contrast, the load-to-strength ratio increased 27% more in women than in men with age (p < .01). These results highlight important site- and sex-specific differences in patterns of age-related bone loss. In particular, the trends for less periosteal expansion, more porous cortices, and a greater percentage of load carried by the DR cortex in women may underpin sex differences in forearm fracture risk. © 2011 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/jbmr.171

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 375

Metadata

Authors
Macdonald, H. M., Nishiyama, K. K., Kang, J., Hanley, D. A., & Boyd, S. K.
Venue
Journal of Bone and Mineral Research
Published
2010-12-22
Volume
26
Issue
1
Pages
50-62
ISSN
  • 0884-0431 (ISSN-L)
  • 1523-4681
OpenAlex
W2112779928
Cited by
375
References
4
FWCI
20.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.