UNLABELLED: New models describing anthropometrically adjusted normal values of bone mineral density and content in children have been created for the various measurement sites. The inclusion of multiple explanatory variables in the models provides the opportunity to calculate Z-scores that are adjusted with respect to the relevant anthropometric parameters. INTRODUCTION: Previous descriptions of children's bone mineral measurements by age have focused on segmenting diverse populations by race and sex without adjusting for anthropometric variables or have included the effects of a single anthropometric variable. METHODS: We applied multivariate semi-metric smoothing to the various pediatric bone-measurement sites using data from the Bone Mineral Density in Childhood Study to evaluate which of sex, race, age, height, weight, percent body fat, and sexual maturity explain variations in the population's bone mineral values. By balancing high adjusted R(2) values with clinical needs, two models are examined. RESULTS: At the spine, whole body, whole body sub head, total hip, hip neck, and forearm sites, models were created using sex, race, age, height, and weight as well as an additional set of models containing these anthropometric variables and percent body fat. For bone mineral density, weight is more important than percent body fat, which is more important than height. For bone mineral content, the order varied by site with body fat being the weakest component. Including more anthropometrics in the model reduces the overlap of the critical groups, identified as those individuals with a Z-score below -2, from the standard sex, race, and age model. CONCLUSIONS: If body fat is not available, the simpler model including height and weight should be used. The inclusion of multiple explanatory variables in the models provides the opportunity to calculate Z-scores that are adjusted with respect to the relevant anthropometric parameters.
UNLABELLED: New models describing anthropometrically adjusted normal values of bone mineral density and content in children have been created for the various measurement sites. The inclusion of multiple explanatory variables in the models provides the opportunity to calculate Z-scores that are adjusted with respect to the relevant anthropometric parameters. INTRODUCTION: Previous descriptions of children's bone mineral measurements by age have focused on segmenting diverse populations by race and sex without adjusting for anthropometric variables or have included the effects of a single anthropometric variable. METHODS: We applied multivariate semi-metric smoothing to the various pediatric bone-measurement sites using data from the Bone Mineral Density in Childhood Study to evaluate which of sex, race, age, height, weight, percent body fat, and sexual maturity explain variations in the population's bone mineral values. By balancing high adjusted R(2) values with clinical needs, two models are examined. RESULTS: At the spine, whole body, whole body sub head, total hip, hip neck, and forearm sites, models were created using sex, race, age, height, and weight as well as an additional set of models containing these anthropometric variables and percent body fat. For bone mineral density, weight is more important than percent body fat, which is more important than height. For bone mineral content, the order varied by site with body fat being the weakest component. Including more anthropometrics in the model reduces the overlap of the critical groups, identified as those individuals with a Z-score below -2, from the standard sex, race, and age model. CONCLUSIONS: If body fat is not available, the simpler model including height and weight should be used. The inclusion of multiple explanatory variables in the models provides the opportunity to calculate Z-scores that are adjusted with respect to the relevant anthropometric parameters.
Authors: E Michael Lewiecki; Catherine M Gordon; Sanford Baim; Mary B Leonard; Nicholas J Bishop; Maria-Luisa Bianchi; Heidi J Kalkwarf; Craig B Langman; Horatio Plotkin; Frank Rauch; Babette S Zemel; Neil Binkley; John P Bilezikian; David L Kendler; Didier B Hans; Stuart Silverman Journal: Bone Date: 2008-08-15 Impact factor: 4.398
Authors: Catherine M Gordon; Laura K Bachrach; Thomas O Carpenter; Nicola Crabtree; Ghada El-Hajj Fuleihan; Stepan Kutilek; Roman S Lorenc; Laura L Tosi; Katherine A Ward; Leanne M Ward; Heidi J Kalkwarf Journal: J Clin Densitom Date: 2008 Jan-Mar Impact factor: 2.617
Authors: Babette S Zemel; Heidi J Kalkwarf; Vicente Gilsanz; Joan M Lappe; Sharon Oberfield; John A Shepherd; Margaret M Frederick; Xiangke Huang; Ming Lu; Soroosh Mahboubi; Thomas Hangartner; Karen K Winer Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2011-09-14 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: D F Short; B S Zemel; V Gilsanz; H J Kalkwarf; J M Lappe; S Mahboubi; S E Oberfield; J A Shepherd; K K Winer; T N Hangartner Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2010-05-21 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: Heidi J Kalkwarf; Babette S Zemel; Vicente Gilsanz; Joan M Lappe; Mary Horlick; Sharon Oberfield; Soroosh Mahboubi; Bo Fan; Margaret M Frederick; Karen Winer; John A Shepherd Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2007-02-20 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Kathleen M Loomes; Cathie Spino; Nathan P Goodrich; Thomas N Hangartner; Amanda E Marker; James E Heubi; Binita M Kamath; Benjamin L Shneider; Philip Rosenthal; Paula M Hertel; Saul J Karpen; Jean P Molleston; Karen F Murray; Kathleen B Schwarz; Robert H Squires; Jeffrey Teckman; Yumirle P Turmelle; Estella M Alonso; Averell H Sherker; John C Magee; Ronald J Sokol Journal: Hepatology Date: 2018-12-27 Impact factor: 17.425
Authors: Ann M Neumeyer; Natalia Cano Sokoloff; Erin McDonnell; Eric A Macklin; Christopher J McDougle; Madhusmita Misra Journal: J Pediatr Date: 2016-11-22 Impact factor: 4.406
Authors: Sogol Mostoufi-Moab; Andrea Kelly; Jonathan A Mitchell; Joshua Baker; Babette S Zemel; Jill Brodsky; Jin Long; Mary B Leonard Journal: Bone Date: 2018-04-19 Impact factor: 4.398
Authors: T N Hangartner; D F Short; T Eldar-Geva; H J Hirsch; M Tiomkin; A Zimran; V Gross-Tsur Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2016-07-04 Impact factor: 4.507