Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 341

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Relationship between body composition and bone mass in women

Khosla, Sundeep, Atkinson, Elizabeth J., Riggs, B. Lawrence, Melton, L. Joseph·1996·Journal of Bone and Mineral Research

Abstract

Increasing body weight is associated both with higher bone mass and with lower rates of bone loss. Whether the effects of body weight are mediated by lean body mass (LBM) or fat body mass (FBM) is, however, uncertain because different studies have used different measures of bone mass and arrived at contradictory conclusions. The parameter actually measured is bone mineral content (BMC). Bone mineral density (BMD), bone mineral apparent density (BMAD), and the BMD/height attempt to “correct” BMC for differences in bone or body size, but these corrections may bias the analysis of the effects of body composition on the skeleton. To resolve this issue, we measured BMC at the total body, lumbar spine, proximal femur, and forearm using dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) in a population-based sample including 138 premenopausal women (age range 21–54 years, mean 35 years) and 213 postmenopausal women (age range 34–94 years, mean 68 years). BMD, BMAD, and BMD/ height were also calculated for each site. LBM and FBM were determined from the DXA whole body scan. In a multivariate analysis that included age and height, both LBM and FBM predicted total body BMC in pre- and postmenopausal women (p < 0.002 for LBM and FBM in both groups). LBM had a dominant effect on spine and forearm BMC in both groups (p < 0.004) and hip BMC in premenopausal women (p < 0.001), whereas both LBM and FBM predicted hip BMC in postmenopausal women (p < 0.001). However, as BMC was adjusted for bone or body size using BMD, BMAD, or BMD/height, FBM tended to become more important than LBM in the analysis. This was, in part, due to the fact that each of the correction factors in the BMD and BMAD calculations, as well as height, were highly correlated with LBM (r = 0.57 and 0.52 for height versus LBM in pre- and postmenopausal women, respectively [p < 0.001]), and weakly or not at all with FBM (r = 0.08 and 0.11, respectively). Therefore, dividing BMC by these correction factors tended to bias the analysis against potential effects of LBM on bone mass. Thus, the relationship between body composition and bone mass is critically dependent on which bone mass parameter is used in the analysis. Both LBM and FBM have important effects on bone mass, depending on the bone mass parameter used, the skeletal site measured, and menopausal status.

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.5650110618

Cites

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

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Khosla, S., Atkinson, E. J., Riggs, B. L., & Melton, L. J.
Venue
Journal of Bone and Mineral Research
Published
1996-06-01
Volume
11
Issue
6
Pages
857-863
ISSN
  • 0884-0431 (ISSN-L)
  • 1523-4681
OpenAlex
W1979055801
Cited by
341
References
0
FWCI
8.12
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

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.