4.7 Article

Cohort Profile: The Japanese Population-based Osteoporosis (JPOS) Cohort Study

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 44, 期 2, 页码 405-414

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/ije/dyu084

关键词

-

资金

  1. Japanese Ministry of Agriculture, Forestries and Fisheries
  2. Japan Milk Promotion Board
  3. Japan Dairy Council
  4. Japanese Society for the Promotion of Science [10470114, 14370147, 18390201, 18590579, 18590619, 18790408, 23390180, 23590824, 23500852, 23659362, 23657176, 24390505, 25670326]
  5. Research Society for Metabolic Bone Diseases
  6. Japan Dairy Association
  7. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [18790408, 18590579, 18390201, 23657176, 23390180, 10470114, 24390505, 23659362, 23500852, 23590824, 25670326, 14370147, 18590619] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Japanese Population-based Osteoporosis (JPOS) Cohort Study was launched in 1996 to produce a reference database of areal bone mineral density (aBMD) by dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) and bone turnover markers in the Japanese female population and to determine risk factors for osteoporotic fractures. At baseline, 3984 women aged 15 to 79 years were randomly selected to provide representative bone status data and aBMD values for the diagnosis of osteoporosis. Follow-up surveys were conducted in 1999, 2002, 2006 and 2011/12 to determine changes in aBMD and identify incident morphometry-confirmed vertebral fractures and clinical fractures. These outcomes were obtained from 2174 women who participated in at least one follow-up survey. JPOS is a unique resource of individual-level bone health information with radiological and biological archives that include DXA images, and serum, plasma and DNA for future analyses with emerging radiological and biological techniques. The JPOS dataset is not freely available, but new collaborations are encouraged. Potential collaborators are invited to contact the Secretary General (M.I.) at the administrative office of the JPOS Study Group.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据