| Title |
Trabecular and Cortical Microarchitecture in Postmenopausal HIV-Infected Women
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Calcified Tissue International, March 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00223-013-9716-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Michael T. Yin, Aimee Shu, Chiyuan A. Zhang, Stephanie Boutroy, Donald J. McMahon, David C. Ferris, Ivelisse Colon, Elizabeth Shane |
| Abstract |
Our objective was to assess the effects of HIV infection and antiretroviral therapy on trabecular and cortical microarchitecture in postmenopausal minority women. A subgroup of 106 (46 HIV-infected, 60 uninfected) postmenopausal Hispanic and African American women from an established cohort had areal bone mineral density (aBMD) measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry and trabecular and cortical volumetric BMD (vBMD) and microarchitecture measured by high-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography (HRpQCT) at the radius and tibia. HIV-infected women were slightly younger (58 ± 1 vs. 61 ± 1 years, p = 0.08), and had lower body mass index (BMI; 28 ± 1 vs. 32 ± 1 kg/m(2), p < 0.01). BMI-adjusted aBMD Z scores were lower in HIV-infected women at the lumbar spine, total hip, and ultradistal radius. Serum N-telopeptide and C-telopeptide levels were also higher in HIV-infected women. Trabecular and cortical vBMD were similar at the radius, but cortical area (105.5 ± 2.4 vs. 120.6 ± 2.0 mm(2), p < 0.01) and thickness (956 ± 33 vs. 1,075 ± 28 μm, p < 0.01) at the tibia were approximately 11-12 % lower in HIV-infected women. Differences remained significant after adjusting for age, BMI, and race/ethnicity. In contrast, cortical porosity was similar in the two groups. Although HIV-infected postmenopausal women had lower aBMD at the spine, total hip, and ultradistal radius and higher levels of bone resorption markers, the only differences detected by HRpQCT were lower cortical thickness and area at the tibia. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 42 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 9 | 21% |
| Researcher | 5 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 12% |
| Other | 3 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 5 | 12% |
| Unknown | 12 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 17 | 40% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 7% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 2% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 2% |
| Mathematics | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 5 | 12% |
| Unknown | 14 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 March 2013.
All research outputs
#15,267,294
of 22,703,044 outputs
Outputs from Calcified Tissue International
#1,335
of 1,755 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#122,501
of 194,739 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Calcified Tissue International
#5
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,703,044 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,755 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 194,739 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.