Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 252

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

Structural Adaptation to Changing Skeletal Load in the Progression Toward Hip Fragility: The Study of Osteoporotic Fractures

Beck, Thomas J., Oreskovic, Tammy L., Stone, Katie L., Ruff, Christopher B., Ensrud, Kristine, Nevitt, Michael C., Genant, Harry K., Cummings, Steven R.·2001·Journal of Bone and Mineral Research

Abstract

Longitudinal, dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) hip data from 4187 mostly white, elderly women from the Study of Osteoporotic Fractures were studied with a structural analysis program. Cross-sectional geometry and bone mineral density (BMD) were measured in narrow regions across the femoral neck and proximal shaft. We hypothesized that altered skeletal load should stimulate adaptive increases or decreases in the section modulus (bending strength index) and that dimensional details would provide insight into hip fragility. Weight change in the ∼3.5 years between scan time points was used as the primary indicator of altered skeletal load. “Static” weight was defined as within 5% of baseline weight, whereas “gain” and “loss” were those who gained or lost >5%, respectively. In addition, we used a frailty index to better identify those subjects undergoing changing in skeletal loading. Subjects were classified as frail if unable to rise from a chair five times without using arm support. Subjects who were both frail and lost weight (reduced loading) were compared with those who were not frail and either maintained weight (unchanged loading) or gained weight (increased loading). Sixty percent of subjects (n = 2559) with unchanged loads lost BMD at the neck but not at the shaft, while section moduli increased slightly at both regions. Subjects with increasing load (n = 580) lost neck BMD but gained shaft BMD; section moduli increased markedly at both locations. Those with declining skeletal loads (n = 105) showed the greatest loss of BMD at both neck and shaft; loss at the neck was caused by both increased loss of bone mass and greater subperiosteal expansion; loss in shaft BMD decline was only caused by greater loss of bone mass. This group also showed significant declines in section modulus at both sites. These results support the contention that mechanical homeostasis in the hip is evident in section moduli but not in bone mass or density. The adaptive response to declining skeletal loads, with greater rates of subperiosteal expansion and cortical thinning, may increase fragility beyond that expected from the reduction in section modulus or bone mass alone.

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.2001.16.6.1108

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

Metadata

Authors
Beck, T. J., Oreskovic, T. L., Stone, K. L., Ruff, C. B., Ensrud, K., Nevitt, M. C., Genant, H. K., & Cummings, S. R.
Venue
Journal of Bone and Mineral Research
Published
2001-06-01
Volume
16
Issue
6
Pages
1108-1119
ISSN
  • 0884-0431 (ISSN-L)
  • 1523-4681
OpenAlex
W2022449616
Cited by
252
References
2
FWCI
10.48
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.