Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33392366›Full record

ArticleBone reports2020

Mineral density differences between femoral cortical bone and trabecular bone are not explained by turnover rate alone.

Chloé Lerebours, Richard Weinkamer, Andreas Roschger, Pascal R Buenzli

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Bone reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Genomic structural variations link multiple genes to bone mineral density in a multi-ethnic cohort study: Louisiana osteoporosis study.Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Trabecular bone remodeling in the aging mouse: A micro-multiphysics agent-basedFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2023
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Chloé LereboursSchool of Mathematical Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, Australia.
Richard WeinkamerMax Planck Institute of Colloids and Interfaces, Department of Biomaterials, Potsdam, Germany.
Andreas RoschgerMax Planck Institute of Colloids and Interfaces, Department of Biomaterials, Potsdam, Germany.
Pascal R BuenzliSchool of Mathematical Sciences, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia.
Max Planck Institute of Colloids and Interfaces · DEMonash University · AUQueensland University of Technology · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Bone mineral density distributions (BMDDs) are a measurable property of bone tissues that depends strongly on bone remodelling and mineralisation processes. These processes can vary significantly in health and disease and across skeletal sites, so there is high interest in analysing these processes from experimental BMDDs. Here, we propose a rigorous hypothesis-testing approach based on a mathematical model of mineral heterogeneity in bone due to remodelling and mineralisation, to help explain differences observed between the BMDD of human femoral cortical bone and the BMDD of human trabecular bone. Recent BMDD measurements show that femoral cortical bone possesses a higher bone mineral density, but a similar mineral heterogeneity around the mean compared to trabecular bone. By combining this data with the mathematical model, we are able to test whether this difference in BMDD can be explained by (i) differences in turnover rate; (ii) differences in osteoclast resorption behaviour; and (iii) differences in mineralisation kinetics between the two bone types. We find that accounting only for differences in turnover rate is inconsistent with the fact that both BMDDs have a similar spread around the mean, and that accounting for differences in osteoclast resorption behaviour leads to biologically inconsistent bone remodelling patterns. We conclude that the kinetics of mineral accumulation in bone matrix must therefore be different in femoral cortical bone and trabecular bone. Although both cortical and trabecular bone are made up of lamellar bone, the different mineralisation kinetics in the two types of bone point towards more profound structural differences than usually assumed.

Indexed as

Bone mineral heterogeneityBone RemodellingFemoral cortical boneMineralisation kineticsTrabecular boneTurnover rate

Identifiers

PMID33392366
PMCPMC7772649
OpenAlexW3094861813

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.