CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 2,543Bone health and osteoporosis researchBone Metabolism and DiseasesClassical Anatomy and Histology

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 85 of the 85 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Standardized nomenclature, symbols, and units for bone histomorphometry: A 2012 update of the report of the ASBMR Histomorphometry Nomenclature Committee

Open access
Dempster, David W, Compston, Juliet E, Drezner, Marc K, Glorieux, Francis H, Kanis, John A, Malluche, Hartmut, Meunier, Pierre J, Ott, Susan M, Recker, Robert R, Parfitt, A Michael·2013·Journal of Bone and Mineral Research
DOI 10.1002/jbmr.1805PMC PMC3672237
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Before publication of the original version of this report in 1987, practitioners of bone histomorphometry communicated with each other in a variety of arcane languages, which in general were unintelligible to those outside the field. The need for standardization of nomenclature had been recognized for many years,1 during which there had been much talk but no action. To satisfy this need, B Lawrence Riggs (ASBMR President, 1985 to 1986) asked A Michael Parfitt to convene an ASBMR committee to develop a new and unified system of terminology, suitable for adoption by the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research (JBMR) as part of its Instructions to Authors. The resulting recommendations were published in 19872 and were quickly adopted not only by JBMR but also by all respected journals in the bone field. The recommendations improved markedly the ability of histomorphometrists to communicate with each other and with nonhistomorphometrists, leading to a broader understanding and appreciation of histomorphometric data. In 2012, 25 years after the development of the standardized nomenclature system, Thomas L Clemens (Editor in Chief of JBMR) felt that it was time to revise and update the recommendations. The original committee was reconvened by David W Dempster, who appointed one new member, Juliet E Compston. The original document was circulated to the committee members and was extensively revised according to their current recommendations. The key revisions include omission of terminology used before 1987, recommendations regarding the parameters and technical information that should be included in all histomorphometry articles, recommendations on how to handle dynamic parameters of bone formation in settings of low bone turnover, and updating of references. It is generally agreed that a bone is an individual organ of the skeletal system, but the term "bone" has at least three meanings. The first is mineralized bone matrix excluding osteoid; this usage conforms rigorously to the definition of bone as a hard tissue. Osteoid is bone matrix that will be (but is not yet) mineralized, and is sometimes referred to as pre-bone. The second meaning of "bone," and the one we have adopted, is bone matrix, whether mineralized or not, ie, including both mineralized bone and osteoid. The third meaning of "bone" is a tissue including bone marrow and other soft tissue, as well as bone as just defined. We refer to the combination of bone and associated soft tissue or marrow as "bone tissue." "Tissue" is defined3 as "an aggregation of similarly specialized cells united in the performance of a particular function." In this sense, bone, bone marrow, and the contents of osteonal canals are certainly not the same tissue, but in a more general sense, most textbooks of histology recognize only four fundamental tissues—epithelium, nerve, muscle, and connective tissue4—of which the last-named includes bone and all its accompanying nonmineralized tissue. In current clinical and radiologic parlance, "trabecular" and "cortical" refer to contrasting structural types of bone. But "trabecular" does not appear in any standard textbook of anatomy or histology as a name for a type of bone; rather, "spongy" or "cancellous" is used. "Spongiosa" (primary or secondary) is best restricted to the stages of endochondral ossification; "cancellous" is most commonly used in textbooks4, 5 and is the term we have chosen. We retain the noun "trabecula" and its associated adjective "trabecular" to refer to an individual structural element of cancellous bone, in accordance with current practice in histology,4 pathology,6 and biomechanics.7 Etymologically, a trabecula is a beam or rod, and in young people plates rather than rods are the predominant structural elements, both in the spine8 and in the ilium,9 but no convenient alternative is available. The size, shape, and orientation of trabeculae (as just defined) vary considerably between different types of cancellous bone.9, 10 "Density" is a frequent source of confusion in discussions about bone. We propose that the term should be restricted as far as possible to its primary meaning in physics of mass per unit volume,11, 12 with a subsidiary meaning analogous to population density, which is applied mainly to cells. This precludes the use of "density" in its stereologic sense, as will be discussed later. Corresponding to the definitions given earlier, the volume to which mass is referred can be of mineralized bone, bone, bone tissue (cortical or cancellous), or a whole bone. Mineralized bone density is slightly less than true bone density, which excludes the volume of osteocyte lacunae and canaliculi.11 This volume is small and generally ignored; lacunar volume can be readily measured,13 but canalicular volume is inaccessible to light microscopy. Bone density reflects the volumetric proportion of osteoid; bone matrix volume, excluding lacunar and canalicular volume, has been referred to as absolute bone volume.14 B

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.1805

Cites

85 of 85 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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

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

Show all 85 references

Research works printed but not linked: 14

  1. Robinson, 1960, Bone as a tissue, 186
  2. Courpron, 1976, Bone histomorphometry. Second international workshop, 39
  3. Vaughan, 1976, The physiology of bone
  4. Parfitt, 1983, Bone histomorphometry. Techniques and interpretations, 53
  5. Aherne, 1982, Morphometry
  6. Schenk, 1976, Proceedings of the First Workshop on Bone Morphometry, 336
  7. Frost, 1983, Bone histomorphometry. Techniques and interpretations, 109
  8. Duncan, 1973, First Workshop on Bone Histomorphometry, 78
  9. Parfitt, 1981, Bone histomorphometry. Third International Workshop, 213
  10. Lindsay, Letter to the editor: double and quadruple tetracycline labeling of bone, J Bone Miner Res
  11. Parfitt, 1983, Bone histomorphometry. Techniques and interpretations, 143
  12. Jaworski, 1983, Skeletal research. Vol 2, 237
  13. Frost, 1983, Bone histomorphometry. Techniques and interpretations, 133
  14. Riggs, 1963, The mathematical approach to physiologic problems

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 701–800 of 1,007

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Dempster, D. W., Compston, J. E., Drezner, M. K., Glorieux, F. H., Kanis, J. A., Malluche, H., Meunier, P. J., Ott, S. M., Recker, R. R., & Parfitt, A. M.
Affiliations
  • Helen Hayes Hospital (US)
  • Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
  • Shriners Hospitals for Children - Canada (CA)
  • Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield Medical School, Sheffield, United Kingdom
  • University of Kentucky (US)
  • Inserm (FR)
  • University of Washington (US)
  • Creighton University (US)
  • University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences (US)
Corresponding author
Dempster, David W
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Bone and Mineral Research
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2012-11-29
Volume
28
Issue
1
Pages
2-17
ISSN
  • 0884-0431 (ISSN-L)
  • 1523-4681
DOI
10.1002/jbmr.1805
PMC
PMC3672237
OpenAlex
W2096425957
Cited by
2,543
References
85
Citations by year
2026: 122 · 2025: 158 · 2024: 205 · 2023: 163 · 2022: 184 · 2021: 227 · 2020: 267 · 2019: 225 · 2018: 220 · 2017: 202 · 2016: 182 · 2015: 175 · 2014: 155 · 2013: 53 · 2012: 1
FWCI
21.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model (vor)
Locations
  • Journal of Bone and Mineral Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Research Bank (Australian Catholic University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • American Society for Bone and Mineral Research
  • National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (R01AR027032)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Bone health and osteoporosis research
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Bone Metabolism and Diseases
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anatomy › Classical Anatomy and Histology
Keywords
bone histomorphometry, terminology standardization, terminology, bone formation, bone resorption, bone turnover, osteoid, bone matrix, low bone turnover
MeSH terms
Animals, Bone and Bones, Humans, Terminology as Topic, Reference Standards, Guidelines as Topic, Research Report

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