Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 15

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The association of body size, shape and composition with vertebral size in midlife—the Northern Finland birth cohort 1966 study

Oura, Petteri, Nurkkala, Marjukka, Auvinen, Juha, Niinimäki, Jaakko, Karppinen, Jaro, Junno, Juho-Antti·2019·Scientific Reports
DOI 10.1038/s41598-019-40880-4
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Small vertebral size increases the risk of osteoporotic vertebral fractures. Obese individuals have larger vertebral size and potentially lower fracture risk than lean individuals, but scarce data exist on the association between vertebral size and anthropometric measures beyond height, weight, and body mass index (BMI). Here, we evaluated several anthropometric measures (height, weight, BMI, waist circumference, hip circumference, waist-to-hip ratio [WHR], waist-to-height ratio [WHtR], fat mass [FM], lean body mass [LBM], percentage FM [%FM], percentage LBM [%LBM]) as predictors of vertebral cross-sectional area (CSA). We used a representative sample from the Northern Finland Birth Cohort 1966 (n = 1087), with anthropometric measurements from the ages of 31 and 46, bioimpedance analysis from the age of 46, and lumbar magnetic resonance imaging from the age of 46 years. In our data, height and LBM correlated most strongly with vertebral CSA among both sexes (0.469 ≤ r ≤ 0.514), while WHR, WHtR, %FM, and %LBM had the weakest correlations with vertebral CSA (|r| ≤ 0.114). We conclude that height and LBM have the highest, yet only moderate correlations with vertebral size. High absolute LBM, rather than FM or abdominal mass accumulation, correlates with large vertebral size and thus potentially also with lower osteoporotic vertebral fracture risk.

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 · 10.1038/s41598-019-40880-4

Cites

3 of 3 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

Research works printed but not linked: 38

  1. Szulc, P. Vertebral fracture - diagnostic difficulties of a major medical problem. J Bone Miner Res 33, 553–559 (2018). · DOI
  2. Mosekilde, L. The effect of modelling and remodelling on human vertebral body architecture. Technol Health Care 6, 287–297 (1998). · DOI
  3. Briggs, A., Greig, A. & Wark, J. The vertebral fracture cascade in osteoporosis: a review of aetiopathogenesis. Osteoporos Int 18, 575–584 (2007). · DOI
  4. Ruyssen-Witrand, A., Gossec, L., Kolta, S., Dougados, M. & Roux, C. Vertebral dimensions as risk factor of vertebral fracture in osteoporotic patients: a systematic literature review. Osteoporos Int 18, 1271–1278 (2007). · DOI
  5. Oura, P. et al. Body mass index trajectories from birth to midlife and vertebral dimensions in midlife – the Northern Finland Birth Cohort 1966 study. JBMR Plus 3, 37–44 (2018). · DOI
  6. Kaze, A., Rosen, H. & Paik, J. A meta-analysis of the association between body mass index and risk of vertebral fracture. Osteoporos Int 29, 31–39 (2018). · DOI
  7. Wang, J., Thornton, J., Kolesnik, S. & Pierson, R. Anthropometry in body composition. An overview. Ann N Y Acad Sci 904, 317–326 (2000). · DOI · Paper page
  8. Madden, A. & Smith, S. Body composition and morphological assessment of nutritional status in adults: a review of anthropometric variables. J Hum Nutr Diet 29, 7–25 (2016). · DOI · Paper page
  9. Smith, S. & Madden, A. Body composition and functional assessment of nutritional status in adults: a narrative review of imaging, impedance, strength and functional techniques. J Hum Nutr Diet 29, 714–732 (2016). · DOI · Paper page
  10. Javaid, M. & Cooper, C. Prenatal and childhood influences on osteoporosis. Best Pract Res Clin Endocrinol Metab 16, 349–367 (2002). · DOI
  11. Seeman, E. Clinical review 137: Sexual dimorphism in skeletal size, density, and strength. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 86, 4576–4584 (2001). · DOI · Paper page
  12. Krishan, K., Kanchan, T., Menezes, R. & Ghosh, A. Forensic anthropology casework-essential methodological considerations in stature estimation. J Forensic Nurs 8, 45–50 (2012). · DOI
  13. Ruff, C. & Niskanen, M. Introduction to special issue: Body mass estimation - Methodological issues and fossil applications. J Hum Evol 115, 1–7 (2018). · DOI
  14. Osterhoff, G. et al. Bone mechanical properties and changes with osteoporosis. Injury 47, S11–20 (2016). · DOI · Paper page
  15. Oura, P. et al. Effect of early life physical growth on midlife vertebral dimensions - The Northern Finland Birth Cohort 1966 study. Bone 101, 172–178 (2017). · DOI
  16. Huxley, R., Mendis, S., Zheleznyakov, E., Reddy, S. & Chan, J. Body mass index, waist circumference and waist:hip ratio as predictors of cardiovascular risk–a review of the literature. Eur J Clin Nutr 64, 16–22 (2010). · DOI · Paper page
  17. Ashwell, M., Gunn, P. & Gibson, S. Waist-to-height ratio is a better screening tool than waist circumference and BMI for adult cardiometabolic risk factors: systematic review and meta-analysis. Obes Rev 13, 275–286 (2012). · DOI · Paper page
  18. Schneider, H. et al. The predictive value of different measures of obesity for incident cardiovascular events and mortality. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 95, 1777–1785 (2010). · DOI · Paper page
  19. Pomeroy, E., Macintosh, A., Wells, J., Cole, T. & Stock, J. Relationship between body mass, lean mass, fat mass, and limb bone cross-sectional geometry: Implications for estimating body mass and physique from the skeleton. Am J Phys Anthropol 166, 56–69 (2018). · DOI
  20. Heaney, R. et al. Peak bone mass. Osteoporos Int 11, 985–1009 (2000). · DOI · Paper page
  21. Sambrook, P. & Cooper, C. Osteoporosis. Lancet 367, 2010–2018 (2006). · DOI · Paper page
  22. Ensrud, K. Epidemiology of fracture risk with advancing age. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 68, 1236–1242 (2013). · DOI · Paper page
  23. Oura, P. et al. Effects of Leisure-Time Physical Activity on Vertebral Dimensions in the Northern Finland Birth Cohort 1966. Sci Rep 6, 27844 (2016). · DOI
  24. Oura, P. et al. Effect of occupational physical activities on vertebral dimensions in midlife in the Northern Finland Birth Cohort 1966. Occup Environ Med 74, 351–356 (2016). · DOI
  25. Oura, P. et al. High-impact exercise in adulthood and vertebral dimensions in midlife - the Northern Finland Birth Cohort 1966 study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 18, 433 (2017). · DOI
  26. Junno, J. et al. Age-related trends in vertebral dimensions. J Anat 226, 434–439 (2015). · DOI
  27. Junno, J. et al. Influence of physical activity on vertebral size. Osteoporos Int 22, 371–372 (2011). · DOI
  28. Junno, J. et al. Temporal trends in vertebral size and shape from medieval to modern-day. PLoS One 4, e4836 (2009). · DOI
  29. Brinckmann, P., Biggemann, M. & Hilweg, D. Prediction of the compressive strength of human lumbar vertebrae. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 4, 3–27 (1989). · DOI
  30. Peel, N. & Eastell, R. Diagnostic value of estimated volumetric bone mineral density of the lumbar spine in osteoporosis. J Bone Miner Res 9, 317–320 (1994). · DOI
  31. Machin, D., Campbell, M. & Walters, S. Medical Statistics, Fourth Edition (John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chippenham, 2007).
  32. Hu, W. et al. Lean mass predicts hip geometry and bone mineral density in chinese men and women and age comparisons of body composition. J Clin Densitom 15, 434–442 (2012). · DOI
  33. El Hage, R. & Baddoura, R. Anthropometric predictors of geometric indices of hip bone strength in a group of Lebanese postmenopausal women. J Clin Densitom 15, 191–197 (2012). · DOI
  34. Semanick, L. et al. Association of body composition and physical activity with proximal femur geometry in middle-aged and elderly Afro-Caribbean men: the Tobago bone health study. Calcif Tissue Int 77, 160–166 (2005). · DOI
  35. Klein, A. et al. On the relationship between stature and anthropometric measurements of lumbar vertebrae. Sci Justice 55, 383–387 (2015). · DOI
  36. Masharawi, Y. et al. Vertebral body shape variation in the thoracic and lumbar spine: characterization of its asymmetry and wedging. Clin Anat 21, 46–54 (2008). · DOI
  37. World Health Organization. Waist Circumference and Waist–Hip Ratio: Report of a WHO Expert Consultation (WHO Press, Geneva, Switzerland, 2011).
  38. Ruff, C. Body mass prediction from skeletal frame size in elite athletes. Am J Phys Anthropol 113, 507–517 (2000). · DOI

Cited by

See all 15

Metadata

Authors
Oura, P., Nurkkala, M., Auvinen, J., Niinimäki, J., Karppinen, J., & Junno, J.-A.
ORCID
Niinimäki, Jaakko
Venue
Scientific Reports
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2019-03-08
Volume
9
Issue
1
ISSN
2045-2322
DOI
10.1038/s41598-019-40880-4
Cited by
15
References
3
Language
en
Licence

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.