导致成年白人女性和男性 FN BMD 与全骨强度之间性别特异性关联的结构差异。

IF 3.4 Q2 ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM
JBMR Plus Pub Date : 2024-01-30 eCollection Date: 2024-04-01 DOI:10.1093/jbmrpl/ziae013
Karl J Jepsen, Erin M R Bigelow, Robert W Goulet, Bonnie T Nolan, Michael A Casden, Kathryn Kennedy, Samantha Hertz, Chandan Kadur, Gregory A Clines, Aleda M Leis, Carrie A Karvonen-Gutierrez, Todd L Bredbenner
{"title":"导致成年白人女性和男性 FN BMD 与全骨强度之间性别特异性关联的结构差异。","authors":"Karl J Jepsen, Erin M R Bigelow, Robert W Goulet, Bonnie T Nolan, Michael A Casden, Kathryn Kennedy, Samantha Hertz, Chandan Kadur, Gregory A Clines, Aleda M Leis, Carrie A Karvonen-Gutierrez, Todd L Bredbenner","doi":"10.1093/jbmrpl/ziae013","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Hip areal BMD (aBMD) is widely used to identify individuals with increased fracture risk. Low aBMD indicates low strength, but this association differs by sex with men showing greater strength for a given aBMD than women. To better understand the structural basis giving rise to this sex-specific discrepancy, cadaveric proximal femurs from White female and male donors were imaged using nano-CT and loaded in a sideways fall configuration to assess strength. FN pseudoDXA images were generated to identify associations among structure, aBMD, and strength that differ by sex. Strength correlated significantly with pseudoDXA aBMD for females (<i>R</i><sup>2</sup> = 0.468, <i>P</i> < .001) and males (<i>R</i><sup>2</sup> = 0.393, <i>P</i> < .001), but the elevations (<i>y</i>-intercepts) of the linear regressions differed between sexes (<i>P</i> < .001). Male proximal femurs were 1045 N stronger than females for a given pseudoDXA aBMD. However, strength correlated with pseudoDXA BMC for females (<i>R</i><sup>2</sup> = 0.433, <i>P</i> < .001) and males (<i>R</i><sup>2</sup> = 0.443, <i>P</i> < .001) but without significant slope (<i>P</i> = .431) or elevation (<i>P</i> = .058) differences. Dividing pseudoDXA BMC by FN-width, total cross-sectional area, or FN-volume led to significantly different associations between strength and the size-adjusted BMC measures for women and men. Three structural differences were identified that differentially affected aBMD and strength for women and men: First, men had more bone mass per unit volume than women; second, different cross-sectional shapes resulted in larger proportions of bone mass orthogonal to the DXA image for men than women; and third, men and women had different proportions of cortical and trabecular bone relative to BMC. Thus, the proximal femurs of women were not smaller versions of men but were constructed in fundamentally different manners. Dividing BMC by a bone size measure was responsible for the sex-specific associations between hip aBMD and strength. Thus, a new approach for adjusting measures of bone mass for bone size and stature is warranted.</p>","PeriodicalId":14611,"journal":{"name":"JBMR Plus","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10958990/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Structural differences contributing to sex-specific associations between FN BMD and whole-bone strength for adult White women and men.\",\"authors\":\"Karl J Jepsen, Erin M R Bigelow, Robert W Goulet, Bonnie T Nolan, Michael A Casden, Kathryn Kennedy, Samantha Hertz, Chandan Kadur, Gregory A Clines, Aleda M Leis, Carrie A Karvonen-Gutierrez, Todd L Bredbenner\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/jbmrpl/ziae013\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Hip areal BMD (aBMD) is widely used to identify individuals with increased fracture risk. Low aBMD indicates low strength, but this association differs by sex with men showing greater strength for a given aBMD than women. To better understand the structural basis giving rise to this sex-specific discrepancy, cadaveric proximal femurs from White female and male donors were imaged using nano-CT and loaded in a sideways fall configuration to assess strength. FN pseudoDXA images were generated to identify associations among structure, aBMD, and strength that differ by sex. Strength correlated significantly with pseudoDXA aBMD for females (<i>R</i><sup>2</sup> = 0.468, <i>P</i> < .001) and males (<i>R</i><sup>2</sup> = 0.393, <i>P</i> < .001), but the elevations (<i>y</i>-intercepts) of the linear regressions differed between sexes (<i>P</i> < .001). Male proximal femurs were 1045 N stronger than females for a given pseudoDXA aBMD. However, strength correlated with pseudoDXA BMC for females (<i>R</i><sup>2</sup> = 0.433, <i>P</i> < .001) and males (<i>R</i><sup>2</sup> = 0.443, <i>P</i> < .001) but without significant slope (<i>P</i> = .431) or elevation (<i>P</i> = .058) differences. Dividing pseudoDXA BMC by FN-width, total cross-sectional area, or FN-volume led to significantly different associations between strength and the size-adjusted BMC measures for women and men. Three structural differences were identified that differentially affected aBMD and strength for women and men: First, men had more bone mass per unit volume than women; second, different cross-sectional shapes resulted in larger proportions of bone mass orthogonal to the DXA image for men than women; and third, men and women had different proportions of cortical and trabecular bone relative to BMC. Thus, the proximal femurs of women were not smaller versions of men but were constructed in fundamentally different manners. Dividing BMC by a bone size measure was responsible for the sex-specific associations between hip aBMD and strength. Thus, a new approach for adjusting measures of bone mass for bone size and stature is warranted.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14611,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JBMR Plus\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10958990/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JBMR Plus\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/jbmrpl/ziae013\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/4/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JBMR Plus","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jbmrpl/ziae013","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/4/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

髋关节平均骨密度(aBMD)被广泛用于识别骨折风险增加的个体。低 aBMD 意味着低强度,但这种关联因性别而异,在给定 aBMD 的情况下,男性比女性显示出更大的强度。为了更好地了解造成这种性别差异的结构基础,我们使用纳米 CT 对来自白人女性和男性捐献者的尸体股骨近端进行了成像,并以侧向坠落配置加载以评估强度。生成了 FN pseudoDXA 图像,以确定结构、aBMD 和强度之间因性别而异的关联。女性的力量与伪 DXA aBMD 有明显的相关性(R2 = 0.468,P R2 = 0.393,P y-截距),线性回归的性别差异(P R2 = 0.433,P R2 = 0.443,P P = .431)或海拔差异(P = .058)。将假 DXA BMC 除以 FN 宽度、总横截面积或 FN 容积会导致女性和男性的力量与尺寸调整后的 BMC 测量值之间存在显著不同的关联。研究发现,有三种结构差异会对女性和男性的 aBMD 和力量产生不同影响:首先,男性单位体积的骨量比女性多;其次,横截面形状的不同导致男性骨量与 DXA 图像正交的比例比女性大;第三,相对于 BMC,男性和女性的皮质骨和小梁骨比例不同。因此,女性的股骨近端并不是男性的缩小版,而是以根本不同的方式构建的。将 BMC 除以骨量是髋部 aBMD 和力量之间存在性别特异性关联的原因。因此,需要一种新的方法来根据骨大小和身材调整骨量的测量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Structural differences contributing to sex-specific associations between FN BMD and whole-bone strength for adult White women and men.

Hip areal BMD (aBMD) is widely used to identify individuals with increased fracture risk. Low aBMD indicates low strength, but this association differs by sex with men showing greater strength for a given aBMD than women. To better understand the structural basis giving rise to this sex-specific discrepancy, cadaveric proximal femurs from White female and male donors were imaged using nano-CT and loaded in a sideways fall configuration to assess strength. FN pseudoDXA images were generated to identify associations among structure, aBMD, and strength that differ by sex. Strength correlated significantly with pseudoDXA aBMD for females (R2 = 0.468, P < .001) and males (R2 = 0.393, P < .001), but the elevations (y-intercepts) of the linear regressions differed between sexes (P < .001). Male proximal femurs were 1045 N stronger than females for a given pseudoDXA aBMD. However, strength correlated with pseudoDXA BMC for females (R2 = 0.433, P < .001) and males (R2 = 0.443, P < .001) but without significant slope (P = .431) or elevation (P = .058) differences. Dividing pseudoDXA BMC by FN-width, total cross-sectional area, or FN-volume led to significantly different associations between strength and the size-adjusted BMC measures for women and men. Three structural differences were identified that differentially affected aBMD and strength for women and men: First, men had more bone mass per unit volume than women; second, different cross-sectional shapes resulted in larger proportions of bone mass orthogonal to the DXA image for men than women; and third, men and women had different proportions of cortical and trabecular bone relative to BMC. Thus, the proximal femurs of women were not smaller versions of men but were constructed in fundamentally different manners. Dividing BMC by a bone size measure was responsible for the sex-specific associations between hip aBMD and strength. Thus, a new approach for adjusting measures of bone mass for bone size and stature is warranted.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
JBMR Plus
JBMR Plus Medicine-Orthopedics and Sports Medicine
CiteScore
5.80
自引率
2.60%
发文量
103
审稿时长
8 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信