4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Does body size account for gender differences in femur bone density and geometry?

期刊

JOURNAL OF BONE AND MINERAL RESEARCH
卷 16, 期 7, 页码 1291-1299

出版社

AMER SOC BONE & MINERAL RES
DOI: 10.1359/jbmr.2001.16.7.1291

关键词

hip structural geometry; sex differences; bone mass; body size; dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry

资金

  1. NIAMS NIH HHS [R01 AR44655] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The extent to which greater bone strength in men is caused by proportionately greater bone mass versus bigger bone size is not clear, primarily because the larger overall body size of men has made direct comparisons of skeletal measures difficult, We examined gender differences in femur neck (FN) areal bone mineral density (BMD) values collected from 5623 non-Hispanic whites aged 20+ years in the third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III, 1988-1994) before and after correction for measured height and weight, We supplemented the conventional areal BMD data (Hologic QDR 1000) with measurements of areal BMD and geometric properties (subperiosteal width, section modulus, and cortical thickness) made at narrow cross-sectional regions traversing the FN and the proximal shaft using a structural analysis program, Before body size adjustment, men had significantly higher values than women for all variables at the three measurement sites (p < 0.0001), Adjustment for body size reduced the differences between the sexes for all variables but had a greater effect on BMD (1-8% higher in men) than on geometry (5-17% higher in men), When examined by age, the sex discrepancy was significantly greater in the older group for all variables except subperiosteal widths. We conclude that although body size difference may account for most of the areal BMD difference between men and women, male bones are still bigger in ways that suggest greater bone strength. These differences may contribute importantly to lower fracture risk in men.

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

4.6
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