Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 261

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

Femoral Neck Structure in Adult Female Athletes Subjected to Different Loading Modalities

Open access
Nikander, Riku, Sievänen, Harri, Heinonen, Ari, Kannus, Pekka·2005·Journal of Bone and Mineral Research

Abstract

Loading modality is a strong external determinant of structure and concomitant strength of the femoral neck. Particularly effective seem to be loadings, which arise from high impacts or impacts from atypical loading directions. Introduction: Physical loading plays an important role, not only in the process of bone modeling and remodeling, but also in shaping a mechanically appropriate bone structure. This study aimed at testing the hypothesis that the type of loading partly determines the femoral neck structure. Materials and Methods: A total of 255 premenopausal female athletes representing volleyball, hurdling, squash-playing, soccer, speed skating, step aerobics, weight-lifting, orienteering, cross-country skiing, cycling, and swimming and their 30 nonathletic counterparts were measured with DXA. Besides the conventional areal BMD (aBMD) of the femoral neck, the hip structure analysis (HSA) was used to estimate the cross-sectional area (CSA), subperiosteal width (W), and section modulus (Z, an index of bone strength) at the narrowest section of the femoral neck. Also, training history, muscle strength, and calcium intake were assessed. The above-mentioned sports were classified according to the type of loading they apparently produce at the hip region; that is, high-impact loading (volleyball, hurdling), odd-impact loading (squash-playing, soccer, speed-skating, step aerobics), high-magnitude loading (weightlifting), low-impact loading (orienteering, cross-country skiing), and nonimpact loading (swimming, cycling). Results: High-impact and odd-impact loading sports were associated with the highest age-, weight-, and height-adjusted aBMD (23% and 29% higher values compared to nonathletic referents), CSA (22% and 27%), and Z (22% and 26%). In contrast, repetitive, nonimpact loading sports were not associated with any clear benefit in any bone value compared with the referents. The W at the narrowest femoral neck section was similar in all groups. Body height and weight accounted virtually for one-half of the variation in Z, whereas the type of loading predicted 13% of the total variation of this variable—clearly more than the 2% attributable to isometric leg extension strength. Both high-impact and odd-impact loading modalities were associated with a large benefit in Z, corresponding to >1 SD in the reference group, whereas repetitive, low-impact loading showed a benefit that was only one-half of that. Surprisingly, high-magnitude loading (weightlifting) was not associated with a statistically significant increase in Z. Conclusion: We conclude that mechanical loading and its modality are strong external determinants of structure and concomitant strength of the femoral neck. Particularly effective seem to be loadings, which arise from high impacts or impacts from atypical loading directions.

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 · 10.1359/jbmr.041119

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

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

Cited by

See all 261

Metadata

Authors
Nikander, R., Sievänen, H., Heinonen, A., & Kannus, P.
Venue
Journal of Bone and Mineral Research
Published
2005-03-01
Volume
20
Issue
3
Pages
520-528
ISSN
  • 0884-0431 (ISSN-L)
  • 1523-4681
OpenAlex
W2086561363
Cited by
261
References
1
FWCI
11.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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.