Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 398

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Comparisons of Noninvasive Bone Mineral Measurements in Assessing Age-Related Loss, Fracture Discrimination, and Diagnostic Classification

Open access
Grampp, Stephan, Genant, Harry K., Mathur, Ashwini, Lang, Philipp, Jergas, Michael, Takada, Masahiko, Glüer, Claus-C., Lu, Ying, Chavez, Monica·1997·Journal of Bone and Mineral Research

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine the commonly available methods of noninvasively assessing bone mineral status across three defined female populations to examine their interrelationships, compare their respective abilities to reflect age- and menopause-related bone loss, discriminate osteoporotic fractures, and classify patients diagnostically. A total of 47 healthy premenopausal (age 33 ± 7 years), 41 healthy postmenopausal (age 64 ± 9 years), and 36 osteoporotic postmenopausal (age 70 ± 6 years) women were examined with the following techniques: (1) quantitative computed tomography of the L1–L4 lumbar spine for trabecular (QCT TRAB BMD) and integral (QCT INTG BMD) bone mineral density (BMD); (2) dual X-ray absorptiometry of the L1–L4 posterior-anterior (DXA PA BMD) and L2–L4 lateral (DXA LAT BMD) lumbar spine, of the femoral neck (DXA NECK BMD) and trochanter (DXA TROC BMD), and of the ultradistal radius (DXA UD BMD) for integral BMD; (3) peripheral QCT of the distal radius for trabecular BMD (pQCT TRAB BMD) and cortical bone mineral content (BMC) (pQCT CORT BMC); (4) two radiographic absorptiometric techniques of the metacarpal (RA METC BMD) and phalanges (RA PHAL BMD) for integral BMD; and (5) two quantitative ultrasound devices (QUS) of the calcaneus for speed of sound (SOS CALC) and broadband ultrasound attenuation (BUA CALC). In general, correlations ranged from (r = 0.10−0.93) among different sites and techniques. We found that pQCT TRAB BMD correlated poorly (r ≤ 0.46) with all other measurements except DXA UD BMD (r = 0.62, p ≤ 0.0001) and RA PHAL BMD (r = 0.52, p ≤ 0.0001). The strongest correlation across techniques was between QCT INT BMD and DXA LAT BMD (r = 0.87, p ≤ 0.0001), and the weakest correlation within a technique was between pQCT TRAB BMD and pQCT CORT BMC (r = 0.25, p ≤ 0.05). Techniques showing the highest correlations with age in the healthy groups also showed the greatest differences among groups. They also showed the best discrimination (as measured by the odds ratios) for the distinction between healthy postmenopausal and osteoporotic postmenopausal groups based on age-adjusted logistic regression analysis. For each anatomic site, the techniques providing the best results were: (1) spine, QCT TRAB BMD (annual loss, −1.2% [healthy premenopausal and healthy postmenopausal]); Student's t-value [not the T score], 5.4 [healthy postmenopausal vs. osteoporotic postmenopausal]; odds ratio, 4.3 [age-adjusted logistic regression for healthy postmenopausal vs. osteoporotic postmenopausal]); (2) hip, DXA TROC BMD (−0.46; 3.5; 2.2); (3) radius, DXA UD BMD (−0.44; 3.3; 1.9) and pQCT, CORT BMC (−0.72; 2.9; 1.7); (4) hand, RA PHAL (−0.51; 3.6; 2.0); and (5) calcaneus, SOS (−0.09; 3.4; 2.1) and BUA (−0.52; 2.6; 1.7). Despite these performance trends, the differences among sites and techniques were statistically insignificant (p > 0.05) using age-adjusted receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. Nevertheless, kappa score analysis (using −2.0 T score as the cut-off value for osteopenia and −2.5 T score for osteoporosis) showed that in general the diagnostic agreement among these measurements in classifying women as osteopenic or osteoporotic was poor, with kappa scores averaging about 0.4 (exceptions were QCT TRAB/INTG BMD, DXA LAT BMD, and RA PHAL BMD, with kappa scores ranging from 0.63 to 0.89). Often different patients were estimated at risk by using different measurement sites or techniques.

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.1997.12.5.697

Cites

2 of 2 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 2 references

Cited by

See all 398

Metadata

Authors
Grampp, S., Genant, H. K., Mathur, A., Lang, P., Jergas, M., Takada, M., Glüer, C.-C., Lu, Y., & Chavez, M.
Venue
Journal of Bone and Mineral Research
Published
1997-05-01
Volume
12
Issue
5
Pages
697-711
ISSN
  • 0884-0431 (ISSN-L)
  • 1523-4681
OpenAlex
W1993759169
Cited by
398
References
2
FWCI
29.65
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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparisons of Noninvasive Bone Mineral Measurements in Assessing Age-Related Loss, Fracture Discrimination, and Diagnostic Classification. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1359/jbmr.1997.12.5.697
The paper
Grampp, S., Genant, H. K., Mathur, A., Lang, P., Jergas, M., Takada, M., Glüer, C.-C., Lu, Y., & Chavez, M. (1997). Comparisons of Noninvasive Bone Mineral Measurements in Assessing Age-Related Loss, Fracture Discrimination, and Diagnostic Classification. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research. https://doi.org/10.1359/jbmr.1997.12.5.697

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.