Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29344931›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of physical anthropology2018

Relationship between body mass, lean mass, fat mass, and limb bone cross-sectional geometry: Implications for estimating body mass and physique from the skeleton.

Emma Pomeroy, Alison Macintosh, Jonathan C K Wells, Tim J Cole, Jay T Stock

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of physical anthropology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
46.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 65 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Journal of microbiology and biotechnology · 2023
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.

Emma PomeroySchool of Natural Sciences and Psychology, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, L3 3AF, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-6251-2165
Alison MacintoshADaPt Project, PAVE Research Group, Department of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, CB2 3QG, United Kingdom.
Jonathan C K WellsUCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, London, WC1N 1EH, United Kingdom.
Tim J ColeUCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, London, WC1N 1EH, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-5711-8200
Jay T StockADaPt Project, PAVE Research Group, Department of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, CB2 3QG, United Kingdom.
Great Ormond Street Hospital · GBLiverpool John Moores University · GBUniversity of Cambridge · GBWestern University · CA

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/J004839/1Medical Research Council MR/M012069/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesEstimating body mass from skeletal dimensions is widely practiced, but methods for estimating its components (lean and fat mass) are poorly developed. The ability to estimate these characteristics would offer new insights into the evolution of body composition and its variation relative to past and present health. This study investigates the potential of long bone cross-sectional properties as predictors of body, lean, and fat mass. MATERIALS AND

methodsHumerus, femur and tibia midshaft cross-sectional properties were measured by peripheral quantitative computed tomography in sample of young adult women (n = 105) characterized by a range of activity levels. Body composition was estimated from bioimpedance analysis.

resultsLean mass correlated most strongly with both upper and lower limb bone properties (r values up to 0.74), while fat mass showed weak correlations (r ≤ 0.29). Estimation equations generated from tibial midshaft properties indicated that lean mass could be estimated relatively reliably, with some improvement using logged data and including bone length in the models (minimum standard error of estimate = 8.9%). Body mass prediction was less reliable and fat mass only poorly predicted (standard errors of estimate ≥11.9% and >33%, respectively). DISCUSSION: Lean mass can be predicted more reliably than body mass from limb bone cross-sectional properties. The results highlight the potential for studying evolutionary trends in lean mass from skeletal remains, and have implications for understanding the relationship between bone morphology and body mass or composition.

Indexed as

Adipose TissueAdultAnthropology, PhysicalAnthropometryBiological EvolutionBody CompositionBody WeightFemaleFemurHumansHumerusYoung Adultfat masshuman evolutionlean massosteology

Identifiers

PMID29344931
PMCPMC6178563
OpenAlexW2785234755

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.