The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Males Have Larger Skeletal Size and Bone Mass Than Females, Despite Comparable Body Size
Abstract
Gender differences in fractures may be related to body size, bone size, geometry, or density. We studied this in 18-year-old males (n = 36) and females (n = 36) matched for height and weight. Despite comparable body size, males have greater BMC and BMD at the hip and distal tibia and greater tibial cortical thickness. This may confer greater skeletal integrity in males. Introduction: Gender differences in fractures may be related to body size, bone size, geometry, or density. We studied this in males (n = 36) and females (n = 36; mean age = 18 years) pair-matched for height and weight. Materials and Methods: BMC, bone area (BA), and BMD were measured in the spine and hip using DXA. Distal tibia was measured by pQCT. Results and Conclusions: Males had a higher lean mass (92%) compared with females (79%). No gender differences were observed for vertebral BMC or vertebral height, although males had greater width and thus BA at the spine. Males had greater BMC and BA at the femoral neck and total femur (p < 0.02). Geometric variables of the hip including neck diameter and neck-axis length were also greater in males (p < 0.02). There was greater cross-sectional moment of inertia, safety factor, and fall index in males (all p < 0.02). Males had greater tibial BMC, volumetric BMD, and cortical area and thickness compared with females (p < 0.01), with both greater periosteal circumference (p = 0.011) and smaller endosteal circumference (p = 0.058). Statistically controlling for lean mass reduced gender differences, but males still had 8% higher hip BMD (p = 0.24) and 5.3% higher total tibial BMD (p = 0.05). A subset of males and females were matched (n = 14 pairs) for total hip BA. Males in this subset still had greater BMC and BMD at the total hip (p < 0.05) than females, despite similar BA. In summary, despite comparable body size, males have greater BMC and BMD than females at the hip and distal tibia but not at the spine. Differences in BMC and BMD were related to greater cortical thickness in the tibia. We conclude that differences in bone mass and geometry confer greater skeletal integrity in males, which may contribute to the lower incidence of stress and osteoporotic fractures in males.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
Updated Data on Proximal Femur Bone Mineral Levels of US Adults
Looker, A. C., Wahner, H. W., Dunn, W. L., Calvo, M. S., Harris, T. B., Heyse, S. P., Johnston Jr, C. C., & Lindsay, R. (1998) · Osteoporosis International · doi:10.1007/s001980050093 · Cited by 1,121 · cited 1×
“Males were reported to have 12–13% greater hip BMD than females in the NHANES data.((10)) In a recent sizeadjusted analysis of NHANES data, the femoral neck difference between makes and females was 3% after adjusting TABLE 4.”
Self-citation
Cited by
Engelke, K., Adams, J. E., Armbrecht, G., Augat, P., Bogado, C. E., Bouxsein, M. L., Felsenberg, D., Ito, M., Prevrhal, S., Hans, D. B., et al. (2008) · Journal of Clinical Densitometry · doi:10.1016/j.jocd.2007.12.010 · Cited by 617
Gender Disparities in Osteoporosis
Alswat, K. A. (2017) · Journal of Clinical Medicine Research · doi:10.14740/jocmr2970w · Cited by 596
Wiren, K. M., Semirale, A. A., Zhang, X.-W., Woo, A., Tommasini, S. M., Price, C., Schaffler, M. B., & Jepsen, K. J. (2008) · Bone · doi:10.1016/j.bone.2008.04.026 · Cited by 65
Metadata
- Authors
- Nieves, J. W., Formica, C., Ruffing, J., Zion, M., Garrett, P., Lindsay, R., & Cosman, F.
- Venue
- Journal of Bone and Mineral Research
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2005-03-01
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 529-535
- ISSN
- 0884-0431 (ISSN-L)
- 1523-4681
- OpenAlex
- W2045530641
- Cited by
- 358
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 12.90
- 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.