Age and sex differences in tibia morphology in healthy adult Caucasians
Abstract Variability in peripheral Quantitative Computed Tomography (pQCT) measurement sites limits direct comparisons of results between studies. Further, it is unclear what estimates of bone strength are most indicative of changes due to aging, disease, or interventions. The purpose of this study...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Bone (New York, N.Y.) N.Y.), 2012-06, Vol.50 (6), p.1324-1331 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 1331 |
---|---|
container_issue | 6 |
container_start_page | 1324 |
container_title | Bone (New York, N.Y.) |
container_volume | 50 |
creator | Sherk, Vanessa D Bemben, Debra A Bemben, Michael G Anderson, Mark A |
description | Abstract Variability in peripheral Quantitative Computed Tomography (pQCT) measurement sites limits direct comparisons of results between studies. Further, it is unclear what estimates of bone strength are most indicative of changes due to aging, disease, or interventions. The purpose of this study was to examine age group and sex differences in tibia morphology. Additional purposes of this study were to determine which tibia site or sites are most sensitive for detecting age and sex differences. Methods Self-identifying Caucasian men (n = 55) and women (n = 59) ages 20–59 years and separated by decades had their non-dominant tibias measured with pQCT (Stratec XCT 3000) at every 10% of the limb length from 5% to 85% (distal to proximal). Volumetric BMD and BMC of the total, cortical and trabecular bone were determined, as well as periosteal (PeriC) and endosteal (EndoC) circumferences, and cortical thickness (CTh). Results There were significant (p < 0.01) site effects for all BMC, vBMD, PeriC and EndoC measures. Large sex differences (men > women) in Tot.BMC (21–28%) were paralleled by differences in Cort.BMC (21–25%) (p < 0.01). Site ∗ sex interaction effects were significant (p < 0.05) for BMC (peak sex difference: 5%, 15%, 25%, 85% sites) and circumference (peak sex difference: 65% site) variables. CTh and total vBMD were lowest (p < 0.05) in 50–59 year group, and EndoC was highest in the 50–59 year group. Site ∗ age interactions existed for Cort.vBMD, Tot.BMC (85% site), and EndoC (25%, 35%, 55%–85% sites). Correcting for bone free lean body mass (BFLBM) greatly reduced sex differences, eliminating sex ∗ site interaction effects, but sex main effects remained significant. Correcting for BFLBM did not eliminate age effects. Conclusion The magnitude of age and sex differences in tibia variables varied by measurement site demonstrating the need for standardization of measurement sites. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.bone.2012.03.005 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_4082662</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>1_s2_0_S8756328212007235</els_id><sourcerecordid>1013920280</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c639t-b6b7498509e5e040d924c8e58a88322d34f37d82c65747ed0313420896be556f3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkk2P0zAQhiMEYsvCH-CAckHikjD-diS00qqCBWklDsDZcpxJ65LaxU5W9N-TqGX5OCBOluznnXnH7xTFcwI1ASJf7-o2BqwpEFoDqwHEg2JFtGIVVZI9LFZaCVkxqulF8STnHQCwRpHHxQWlnDecy1Vxc73B0oauzPi97HzfY8LgMJc-lKNvvS33MR22cYib43K3RTuM22Npu2kYy7WdnM3ehvy0eNTbIeOz83lZfHn39vP6fXX78ebD-vq2cpI1Y9XKVvFGC2hQIHDoGsqdRqGt1ozSjvGeqU5TJ4XiCjtghHEKupEtCiF7dllcneoepnaPncMwJjuYQ_J7m44mWm_-fAl-azbxznDQVEo6F3h1LpDitwnzaPY-OxwGGzBO2RCY2wnKqf4PlLCGAtUwo_SEuhRzTtjfOyKwcNLszBKWWcIywMwc1ix68fss95Kf6czAyzNgs7NDn2xwPv_ipJKKi8XomxOH88_feUwmO7_E2PmEbjRd9P_2cfWX3A0--LnjVzxi3sUphTlTQ0yeNebTslbLVhEKoCgT7AeRnMYm</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1013920280</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Age and sex differences in tibia morphology in healthy adult Caucasians</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Sherk, Vanessa D ; Bemben, Debra A ; Bemben, Michael G ; Anderson, Mark A</creator><creatorcontrib>Sherk, Vanessa D ; Bemben, Debra A ; Bemben, Michael G ; Anderson, Mark A</creatorcontrib><description>Abstract Variability in peripheral Quantitative Computed Tomography (pQCT) measurement sites limits direct comparisons of results between studies. Further, it is unclear what estimates of bone strength are most indicative of changes due to aging, disease, or interventions. The purpose of this study was to examine age group and sex differences in tibia morphology. Additional purposes of this study were to determine which tibia site or sites are most sensitive for detecting age and sex differences. Methods Self-identifying Caucasian men (n = 55) and women (n = 59) ages 20–59 years and separated by decades had their non-dominant tibias measured with pQCT (Stratec XCT 3000) at every 10% of the limb length from 5% to 85% (distal to proximal). Volumetric BMD and BMC of the total, cortical and trabecular bone were determined, as well as periosteal (PeriC) and endosteal (EndoC) circumferences, and cortical thickness (CTh). Results There were significant (p < 0.01) site effects for all BMC, vBMD, PeriC and EndoC measures. Large sex differences (men > women) in Tot.BMC (21–28%) were paralleled by differences in Cort.BMC (21–25%) (p < 0.01). Site ∗ sex interaction effects were significant (p < 0.05) for BMC (peak sex difference: 5%, 15%, 25%, 85% sites) and circumference (peak sex difference: 65% site) variables. CTh and total vBMD were lowest (p < 0.05) in 50–59 year group, and EndoC was highest in the 50–59 year group. Site ∗ age interactions existed for Cort.vBMD, Tot.BMC (85% site), and EndoC (25%, 35%, 55%–85% sites). Correcting for bone free lean body mass (BFLBM) greatly reduced sex differences, eliminating sex ∗ site interaction effects, but sex main effects remained significant. Correcting for BFLBM did not eliminate age effects. Conclusion The magnitude of age and sex differences in tibia variables varied by measurement site demonstrating the need for standardization of measurement sites.</description><identifier>ISSN: 8756-3282</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1873-2763</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.bone.2012.03.005</identifier><identifier>PMID: 22449446</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Amsterdam: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Adult ; Age Factors ; Aging ; Aging - pathology ; Aging - physiology ; Biological and medical sciences ; Biomechanical Phenomena ; Bone (cortical) ; Bone (trabecular) ; Bone Density ; Bone mass ; Bone mineral content ; Bone mineral density ; Bone strength ; Computed tomography ; Cross-Sectional Studies ; Female ; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology ; Humans ; Lean body mass ; Lean mass ; Limbs ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Morphology ; Orthopedics ; pQCT ; Sex ; Sex Characteristics ; Sex differences ; Standardization ; Tibia ; Tibia - anatomy & histology ; Tibia - diagnostic imaging ; Tibia - physiology ; Tomography, X-Ray Computed ; vBMD ; Vertebrates: anatomy and physiology, studies on body, several organs or systems ; White People ; Young Adult</subject><ispartof>Bone (New York, N.Y.), 2012-06, Vol.50 (6), p.1324-1331</ispartof><rights>Elsevier Inc.</rights><rights>2012 Elsevier Inc.</rights><rights>2014 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><rights>2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. 2012</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c639t-b6b7498509e5e040d924c8e58a88322d34f37d82c65747ed0313420896be556f3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c639t-b6b7498509e5e040d924c8e58a88322d34f37d82c65747ed0313420896be556f3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S8756328212007235$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,776,780,881,3537,27901,27902,65306</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=26767458$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22449446$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Sherk, Vanessa D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bemben, Debra A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bemben, Michael G</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Anderson, Mark A</creatorcontrib><title>Age and sex differences in tibia morphology in healthy adult Caucasians</title><title>Bone (New York, N.Y.)</title><addtitle>Bone</addtitle><description>Abstract Variability in peripheral Quantitative Computed Tomography (pQCT) measurement sites limits direct comparisons of results between studies. Further, it is unclear what estimates of bone strength are most indicative of changes due to aging, disease, or interventions. The purpose of this study was to examine age group and sex differences in tibia morphology. Additional purposes of this study were to determine which tibia site or sites are most sensitive for detecting age and sex differences. Methods Self-identifying Caucasian men (n = 55) and women (n = 59) ages 20–59 years and separated by decades had their non-dominant tibias measured with pQCT (Stratec XCT 3000) at every 10% of the limb length from 5% to 85% (distal to proximal). Volumetric BMD and BMC of the total, cortical and trabecular bone were determined, as well as periosteal (PeriC) and endosteal (EndoC) circumferences, and cortical thickness (CTh). Results There were significant (p < 0.01) site effects for all BMC, vBMD, PeriC and EndoC measures. Large sex differences (men > women) in Tot.BMC (21–28%) were paralleled by differences in Cort.BMC (21–25%) (p < 0.01). Site ∗ sex interaction effects were significant (p < 0.05) for BMC (peak sex difference: 5%, 15%, 25%, 85% sites) and circumference (peak sex difference: 65% site) variables. CTh and total vBMD were lowest (p < 0.05) in 50–59 year group, and EndoC was highest in the 50–59 year group. Site ∗ age interactions existed for Cort.vBMD, Tot.BMC (85% site), and EndoC (25%, 35%, 55%–85% sites). Correcting for bone free lean body mass (BFLBM) greatly reduced sex differences, eliminating sex ∗ site interaction effects, but sex main effects remained significant. Correcting for BFLBM did not eliminate age effects. Conclusion The magnitude of age and sex differences in tibia variables varied by measurement site demonstrating the need for standardization of measurement sites.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Age Factors</subject><subject>Aging</subject><subject>Aging - pathology</subject><subject>Aging - physiology</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Biomechanical Phenomena</subject><subject>Bone (cortical)</subject><subject>Bone (trabecular)</subject><subject>Bone Density</subject><subject>Bone mass</subject><subject>Bone mineral content</subject><subject>Bone mineral density</subject><subject>Bone strength</subject><subject>Computed tomography</subject><subject>Cross-Sectional Studies</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Lean body mass</subject><subject>Lean mass</subject><subject>Limbs</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Morphology</subject><subject>Orthopedics</subject><subject>pQCT</subject><subject>Sex</subject><subject>Sex Characteristics</subject><subject>Sex differences</subject><subject>Standardization</subject><subject>Tibia</subject><subject>Tibia - anatomy & histology</subject><subject>Tibia - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Tibia - physiology</subject><subject>Tomography, X-Ray Computed</subject><subject>vBMD</subject><subject>Vertebrates: anatomy and physiology, studies on body, several organs or systems</subject><subject>White People</subject><subject>Young Adult</subject><issn>8756-3282</issn><issn>1873-2763</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2012</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkk2P0zAQhiMEYsvCH-CAckHikjD-diS00qqCBWklDsDZcpxJ65LaxU5W9N-TqGX5OCBOluznnXnH7xTFcwI1ASJf7-o2BqwpEFoDqwHEg2JFtGIVVZI9LFZaCVkxqulF8STnHQCwRpHHxQWlnDecy1Vxc73B0oauzPi97HzfY8LgMJc-lKNvvS33MR22cYib43K3RTuM22Npu2kYy7WdnM3ehvy0eNTbIeOz83lZfHn39vP6fXX78ebD-vq2cpI1Y9XKVvFGC2hQIHDoGsqdRqGt1ozSjvGeqU5TJ4XiCjtghHEKupEtCiF7dllcneoepnaPncMwJjuYQ_J7m44mWm_-fAl-azbxznDQVEo6F3h1LpDitwnzaPY-OxwGGzBO2RCY2wnKqf4PlLCGAtUwo_SEuhRzTtjfOyKwcNLszBKWWcIywMwc1ix68fss95Kf6czAyzNgs7NDn2xwPv_ipJKKi8XomxOH88_feUwmO7_E2PmEbjRd9P_2cfWX3A0--LnjVzxi3sUphTlTQ0yeNebTslbLVhEKoCgT7AeRnMYm</recordid><startdate>20120601</startdate><enddate>20120601</enddate><creator>Sherk, Vanessa D</creator><creator>Bemben, Debra A</creator><creator>Bemben, Michael G</creator><creator>Anderson, Mark A</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><general>Elsevier</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>7QP</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20120601</creationdate><title>Age and sex differences in tibia morphology in healthy adult Caucasians</title><author>Sherk, Vanessa D ; Bemben, Debra A ; Bemben, Michael G ; Anderson, Mark A</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c639t-b6b7498509e5e040d924c8e58a88322d34f37d82c65747ed0313420896be556f3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2012</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Age Factors</topic><topic>Aging</topic><topic>Aging - pathology</topic><topic>Aging - physiology</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Biomechanical Phenomena</topic><topic>Bone (cortical)</topic><topic>Bone (trabecular)</topic><topic>Bone Density</topic><topic>Bone mass</topic><topic>Bone mineral content</topic><topic>Bone mineral density</topic><topic>Bone strength</topic><topic>Computed tomography</topic><topic>Cross-Sectional Studies</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Lean body mass</topic><topic>Lean mass</topic><topic>Limbs</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Morphology</topic><topic>Orthopedics</topic><topic>pQCT</topic><topic>Sex</topic><topic>Sex Characteristics</topic><topic>Sex differences</topic><topic>Standardization</topic><topic>Tibia</topic><topic>Tibia - anatomy & histology</topic><topic>Tibia - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Tibia - physiology</topic><topic>Tomography, X-Ray Computed</topic><topic>vBMD</topic><topic>Vertebrates: anatomy and physiology, studies on body, several organs or systems</topic><topic>White People</topic><topic>Young Adult</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Sherk, Vanessa D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bemben, Debra A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bemben, Michael G</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Anderson, Mark A</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>Calcium & Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Bone (New York, N.Y.)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Sherk, Vanessa D</au><au>Bemben, Debra A</au><au>Bemben, Michael G</au><au>Anderson, Mark A</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Age and sex differences in tibia morphology in healthy adult Caucasians</atitle><jtitle>Bone (New York, N.Y.)</jtitle><addtitle>Bone</addtitle><date>2012-06-01</date><risdate>2012</risdate><volume>50</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>1324</spage><epage>1331</epage><pages>1324-1331</pages><issn>8756-3282</issn><eissn>1873-2763</eissn><abstract>Abstract Variability in peripheral Quantitative Computed Tomography (pQCT) measurement sites limits direct comparisons of results between studies. Further, it is unclear what estimates of bone strength are most indicative of changes due to aging, disease, or interventions. The purpose of this study was to examine age group and sex differences in tibia morphology. Additional purposes of this study were to determine which tibia site or sites are most sensitive for detecting age and sex differences. Methods Self-identifying Caucasian men (n = 55) and women (n = 59) ages 20–59 years and separated by decades had their non-dominant tibias measured with pQCT (Stratec XCT 3000) at every 10% of the limb length from 5% to 85% (distal to proximal). Volumetric BMD and BMC of the total, cortical and trabecular bone were determined, as well as periosteal (PeriC) and endosteal (EndoC) circumferences, and cortical thickness (CTh). Results There were significant (p < 0.01) site effects for all BMC, vBMD, PeriC and EndoC measures. Large sex differences (men > women) in Tot.BMC (21–28%) were paralleled by differences in Cort.BMC (21–25%) (p < 0.01). Site ∗ sex interaction effects were significant (p < 0.05) for BMC (peak sex difference: 5%, 15%, 25%, 85% sites) and circumference (peak sex difference: 65% site) variables. CTh and total vBMD were lowest (p < 0.05) in 50–59 year group, and EndoC was highest in the 50–59 year group. Site ∗ age interactions existed for Cort.vBMD, Tot.BMC (85% site), and EndoC (25%, 35%, 55%–85% sites). Correcting for bone free lean body mass (BFLBM) greatly reduced sex differences, eliminating sex ∗ site interaction effects, but sex main effects remained significant. Correcting for BFLBM did not eliminate age effects. Conclusion The magnitude of age and sex differences in tibia variables varied by measurement site demonstrating the need for standardization of measurement sites.</abstract><cop>Amsterdam</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>22449446</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.bone.2012.03.005</doi><tpages>8</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 8756-3282 |
ispartof | Bone (New York, N.Y.), 2012-06, Vol.50 (6), p.1324-1331 |
issn | 8756-3282 1873-2763 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_4082662 |
source | MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals |
subjects | Adult Age Factors Aging Aging - pathology Aging - physiology Biological and medical sciences Biomechanical Phenomena Bone (cortical) Bone (trabecular) Bone Density Bone mass Bone mineral content Bone mineral density Bone strength Computed tomography Cross-Sectional Studies Female Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology Humans Lean body mass Lean mass Limbs Male Middle Aged Morphology Orthopedics pQCT Sex Sex Characteristics Sex differences Standardization Tibia Tibia - anatomy & histology Tibia - diagnostic imaging Tibia - physiology Tomography, X-Ray Computed vBMD Vertebrates: anatomy and physiology, studies on body, several organs or systems White People Young Adult |
title | Age and sex differences in tibia morphology in healthy adult Caucasians |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-09T01%3A00%3A53IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Age%20and%20sex%20differences%20in%20tibia%20morphology%20in%20healthy%20adult%20Caucasians&rft.jtitle=Bone%20(New%20York,%20N.Y.)&rft.au=Sherk,%20Vanessa%20D&rft.date=2012-06-01&rft.volume=50&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=1324&rft.epage=1331&rft.pages=1324-1331&rft.issn=8756-3282&rft.eissn=1873-2763&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.bone.2012.03.005&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E1013920280%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1013920280&rft_id=info:pmid/22449446&rft_els_id=1_s2_0_S8756328212007235&rfr_iscdi=true |