Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 540

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Relative Contributions of Aging and Estrogen Deficiency to Postmenopausal Bone Loss

Richelson, Linda S., Wahner, Heinz W., Melton, L. J., Riggs, B. Lawrence·1984·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

Debate continues on whether aging or estrogen deficiency is the more important determinant of postmenopausal bone loss. We compared 14 women who had undergone oophorectomy during young adulthood, 14 normal perimenopausal women, and 14 normal postmenopausal women (mean ages, 54, 52, and 73 years, respectively; mean duration of estrogen deficiency, 22, 0.3, and 22 years, respectively). Bone mineral density was assessed by single-photon and dual-photon absorptiometry. As compared with the perimenopausal group, the other two groups had significantly lower bone mineral density at the midradius, femoral neck, femoral intertrochanteric area, and lumbar spine (-15 per cent, -25 per cent, -16 per cent, and -23 per cent, respectively, in the oophorectomized group and -18 per cent, -28 per cent, -26 per cent, and -23 per cent, respectively, in the postmenopausal group). Because bone loss in the oophorectomized group (differing from the perimenopausal group in menopausal status but not in age) was almost as great as in the postmenopausal group (differing in both characteristics), we suggest that estrogen deficiency, and not aging, may be the predominant cause of bone loss occurring during the first two decades after natural menopause.

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 · 10.1056/nejm198411153112002

Cites

1 of 1 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 1 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Richelson, L. S., Wahner, H. W., Melton, L. J., & Riggs, B. L.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
1984-11-15
Volume
311
Issue
20
Pages
1273-1275
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2081028263
Cited by
540
References
1
FWCI
30.68
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.