Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 336

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

Age- and gender-related differences in the geometric properties and biomechanical significance of intracortical porosity in the distal radius and tibia

Open access
Burghardt, Andrew J, Kazakia, Galateia J, Ramachandran, Sweta, Link, Thomas M, Majumdar, Sharmila·2010·Journal of Bone and Mineral Research

Abstract

Cortical bone contributes the majority of overall bone mass and bears the bulk of axial loads in the peripheral skeleton. Bone metabolic disorders often are manifested by cortical microstructural changes via osteonal remodeling and endocortical trabecularization. The goal of this study was to characterize intracortical porosity in a cross-sectional patient cohort using novel quantitative computational methods applied to high-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography (HR-pQCT) images of the distal radius and tibia. The distal radius and tibia of 151 subjects (57 male, 94 female; 47 ± 16 years of age, range 20 to 78 years) were imaged using HR-pQCT. Intracortical porosity (Ct.Po) was calculated as the pore volume normalized by the sum of the pore and cortical bone volume. Micro–finite element analysis (µFE) was used to simulate 1% uniaxial compression for two scenarios per data set: (1) the original structure and (2) the structure with intracortical porosity artificially occluded. Differential biomechanical indices for stiffness (ΔK), modulus (ΔE), failure load (ΔF), and cortical load fraction (ΔCt.LF) were calculated as the difference between original and occluded values. Regression analysis revealed that cortical porosity, as depicted by HR-pQCT, exhibited moderate but significant age-related dependence for both male and female cohorts (radius ρ = 0.7; tibia ρ = 0.5; p < .001). In contrast, standard cortical metrics (Ct.Th, Ct.Ar, and Ct.vBMD) were more weakly correlated or not significantly correlated with age in this population. Furthermore, differential µFE analysis revealed that the biomechanical deficit (ΔK) associated with cortical porosity was significantly higher for postmenopausal women than for premenopausal women (p < .001). Finally, porosity-related measures provided the only significant decade-wise discrimination in the radius for females in their fifties versus females in their sixties (p < .01). Several important conclusions can be drawn from these results. Age-related differences in cortical porosity, as detected by HR-pQCT, are more pronounced than differences in standard cortical metrics. The biomechanical significance of these structural differences increases with age for men and women and provides discriminatory information for menopause-related bone quality effects. © 2010 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research

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.091104

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
Burghardt, A. J., Kazakia, G. J., Ramachandran, S., Link, T. M., & Majumdar, S.
Venue
Journal of Bone and Mineral Research
Published
2010-04-30
Volume
25
Issue
5
Pages
983-993
ISSN
  • 0884-0431 (ISSN-L)
  • 1523-4681
OpenAlex
W1966877738
Cited by
336
References
1
FWCI
18.89
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.