4.7 Article

Brown Adipose Tissue and Its Relationship to Bone Structure in Pediatric Patients

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM
卷 97, 期 8, 页码 2693-2698

出版社

ENDOCRINE SOC
DOI: 10.1210/jc.2012-1589

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases [R21DK090778, K25DK087931]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Context: Emerging evidence suggests a possible link between brown adipose tissue (BAT) and bone metabolism. Objective: The objective of this study was to examine the relationships between BAT and bone cross-sectional dimensions in children and adolescents. Design: This was a cross-sectional study. Setting: The study was conducted at a pediatric referral center. Patients: Patients included 40 children and teenagers (21 males and 19 females) successfully treated for pediatric malignancies. Interventions: There were no interventions. Main Outcome Measures: The volume of BAT was determined by fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography/computed tomography. Measures of the cross-sectional area and cortical bone area and measures of thigh musculature and sc fat were determined at the midshaft of the femur. Results: Regardless of sex, there were significant correlations seen between BAT volume and the cross-sectional dimensions of the bone (r values between 0.68 and 0.77; all P <= 0.001). Multiple regression analyses indicated that the volume of BAT predicted femoral cross-sectional area and cortical bone area, even after accounting for height, weight, and gender. The addition of muscle as an independent variable increased the predictive power of the model but significantly decreased the contribution of BAT. Conclusions: The volume of BAT is positively associated with the amount of bone and the cross-sectional size of the femur in children and adolescents. This relation between BAT and bone structure could, at least in part, be mediated by muscle. (J Clin Endocrinol Metab 97: 2693-2698, 2012)

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