ArticleBone reports2021
Dominant and nondominant distal radius microstructure: Predictors of asymmetry and effects of a unilateral mechanical loading intervention.
Article in Bone reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Cortical Bone Loss in Barcelona Across Time (1st Century CE-18th Century CE) and Its Potential Relationship With Linear Enamel Hypoplasia.American journal of biological anthropology · 2026Article
- Exploration of the covariation signal between cortical bone and dentine volumes across the upper limb bones and anterior teeth in modern humans and relevance to evolutionary anthropology.Journal of anatomy · 2025Article
- Analysis of Differences in Single-Joint Movement of Dominant and Non-Dominant Hands for Human-like Robotic Control.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Most information about distal radius microstructure is based on the non-dominant forearm, with little known about the factors that contribute to bilateral asymmetries in the general population, or what factors may influence bilateral changes over time. Here, we analyzed bilateral high resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography (HRpQCT) data collected over a 12-month period as part of a clinical trial that prescribed a well-controlled, compressive loading task to the nondominant forearm. Baseline data from 102 women age 21-40, and longitudinal data from 66 women who completed the 12-month trial, were examined to determine factors responsible for side-to-side asymmetries in bone structure and change in structure over time. Cross-sectionally, the dominant radius had 2.4%-2.7% larger cross-sectional area, trabecular area, and bone mineral content than the nondominant radius, but no other differences were noted. Those who more strongly favored their dominant arm had significantly more, thinner, closely spaced trabecular struts in their dominant versus nondominant radius. Individuals assigned to a loading intervention had significant bilateral gains in total bone mineral density (2.0% and 1.2% in the nondominant versus dominant sides), and unilateral gains in the nondominant (loaded) cortical area (3.1%), thickness (3.0%), bone mineral density (1.7%) and inner trabecular density (1.3%). Each of these gains were significantly predicted by loading dose, a metric that included bone strain, number of cycles, and strain rate. Within individuals, change was negatively associated with age, meaning that women closer to age 40 experienced less of a gain in bone versus those closer to age 21. We believe that dominant/nondominant asymmetries in bone structure reflect differences in habitual loads during growth and past ability to adapt, while response to loading reflects current individual physiologic capacity to adapt.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.