Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 277

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 38 of the 38 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Static and tetracycline-based bone histomorphometric data from 34 normal postmenopausal females

Dr. Recker, Robert R., Kimmel, Donald B., Parfitt, Michael A., Davies, Michael K., Keshawarz, Naser, Hinders, Sharilyn·1988·Journal of Bone and Mineral Research

Abstract

Transilial bone biopsies were obtained from 34 healthy postmenopausal women following in vivo fluorochrome labeling. Stained and unstained undecalcified sections were evaluated using a Merz grid. Standard histomorphometric data from cancellous bone tissue were collected and the results were evaluated and presented as variables commonly used in bone histomorphometry. The normal ranges, medians, means, and standard deviations for the group of 34 are presented in tabular form for structural, surface, basic dynamic, and derived dynamic data. Similar data for individuals grouped by ages 45–54, 55–64, and 65–74 are also presented. Secular trends for the whole group are evaluated. The structural and surface data are not much different from previous reports of sudden-death accident victims, when methodologic differences are considered. The mineral apposition rate (MAR) was 0.53 ± 0.08 μm/day, similar to previous reports in cancellous bone, but one-third less than in cortical bone. MAR showed a marked decline with age. In contrast, the extent of tetracycline-labeled surfaces varied widely without a secular trend. Double-label surface (dLS/BS) ranged from 0.5 to 8.0% and single-label surface (sLS/BS), from 0.5 to 10.5%. Mineralizing osteoid surface (MS/OS) varied from 2 to 64%. Using only double-label surface to represent mineralizing surface, volumebased bone formation rate (BFR/BV) ranged from 0.7 to 28%/yr, and the remodeling period (Rm.P) varied from 0.28 to 4.5 years. Calculations using other representations of mineralizing surface [double plus one-half single label (MS/BS″); all label (MS/BS′)] are also presented. These bone histomorphometric data are important because: (1) they come from a cohort of living subjects that was recruited solely for the purpose of establishing normal bone histomorphometry; (2) they represent the age range of patients with postmenopausal osteoporosis; and (3) they markedly expand the bone histomorphometric database of healthy persons given in vivo fluorochrome labeling prior to transilial biopsy.

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.5650030203

Cites

38 of 38 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

Show all 38 references

Cited by

See all 277

Metadata

Authors
Dr. Recker, R. R., Kimmel, D. B., Parfitt, M. A., Davies, M. K., Keshawarz, N., & Hinders, S.
Venue
Journal of Bone and Mineral Research
Published
1988-04-01
Volume
3
Issue
2
Pages
133-144
ISSN
  • 0884-0431 (ISSN-L)
  • 1523-4681
OpenAlex
W2068523275
Cited by
277
References
38
FWCI
11.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Static and tetracycline-based bone histomorphometric data from 34 normal postmenopausal females. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/jbmr.5650030203
The paper
Dr. Recker, R. R., Kimmel, D. B., Parfitt, M. A., Davies, M. K., Keshawarz, N., & Hinders, S. (1988). Static and tetracycline-based bone histomorphometric data from 34 normal postmenopausal females. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbmr.5650030203

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.