Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 259

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Race and Sex Effects on the Association Between Muscle Strength, Soft Tissue, and Bone Mineral Density in Healthy Elders: The Health, Aging, and Body Composition Study

Taaffe, Dennis R., Cauley, Jane A., Danielson, Michelle, Nevitt, Michael C., Lang, Thomas F., Bauer, Douglas C., Harris, Tamara B.·2001·Journal of Bone and Mineral Research

Abstract

Two factors generally reported to influence bone density are body composition and muscle strength. However, it is unclear if these relationships are consistent across race and sex, especially in older persons. If differences do exist by race and/or sex, then strategies to maintain bone mass or minimize bone loss in older adults may need to be modified accordingly. Therefore, we examined the independent effects of bone mineral-free lean mass (LM), fat mass (FM), and muscle strength on regional and whole body bone mineral density (BMD) in a cohort of 2619 well-functioning older adults participating in the Health, Aging, and Body Composition (Health ABC) Study with complete measures. Participants included 738 white women, 599 black women, 827 white men, and 455 black men aged 70-79 years. BMD (g/cm2) of the femoral neck, whole body, upper and lower limb, and whole body and upper limb bone mineral-free LM and FM was assessed by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). Handgrip strength and knee extensor torque were determined by dynamometry. In analyses stratified by race and sex and adjusted for a number of confounders, LM was a significant (p < 0.001) determinant of BMD, except in white women for the lower limb and whole body. In women, FM also was an independent contributor to BMD at the femoral neck, and both FM and muscle strength contributed to limb BMD. The following were the respective β-weights (regression coefficients for standardized data, Std β) and percent difference in BMD per unit (7.5 kg) LM: femoral neck, 0.202-0.386 and 4.7-5.9%; lower limb, 0.209-0.357 and 2.9-3.5%; whole body, 0.239-0.484 and 3.0-4.7%; and upper limb (unit = 0.5 kg), 0.231-0.407 and 3.1-3.4%. Adjusting for bone size (bone mineral apparent density [BMAD]) or body size BMD/height) diminished the importance of LM, and the contributory effect of FM became more pronounced. These results indicate that LM and FM were associated with bone mineral depending on the bone site and bone index used. Where differences did occur, they were primarily by sex not race. To preserve BMD, maintaining or increasing LM in the elderly would appear to be an appropriate strategy, regardless of race or sex.

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.2001.16.7.1343

Cites

3 of 3 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 3 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Taaffe, D. R., Cauley, J. A., Danielson, M., Nevitt, M. C., Lang, T. F., Bauer, D. C., & Harris, T. B.
Venue
Journal of Bone and Mineral Research
Published
2001-07-01
Volume
16
Issue
7
Pages
1343-1352
ISSN
  • 0884-0431 (ISSN-L)
  • 1523-4681
OpenAlex
W2031958489
Cited by
259
References
3
FWCI
5.08
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.