| Title |
Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry underestimates in vivo lumbar spine bone mineral density in overweight rats
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Bone and Mineral Metabolism, February 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00774-017-0813-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Rim Cherif, Laurence Vico, Norbert Laroche, Mohsen Sakly, Nebil Attia, Cedric Lavet |
| Abstract |
Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is currently the most widely used technique for measuring areal bone mineral density (BMD). However, several studies have shown inaccuracy, with either overestimation or underestimation of DXA BMD measurements in the case of overweight or obese individuals. We have designed an overweight rat model based on junk food to compare the effect of obesity on in vivo and ex vivo BMD and bone mineral content measurements. Thirty-eight 6-month old male rats were given a chow diet (n = 13) or a high fat and sucrose diet (n = 25), with the calorie amount being kept the same in the two groups, for 19 weeks. L1 BMD, L1 bone mineral content, amount of abdominal fat, and amount of abdominal lean were obtained from in vivo DXA scan. Ex vivo L1 BMD was also measured. A difference between in vivo and ex vivo DXA BMD measurements (P < 0.0001) is evidenced with an underestimation of in vivo BMD by (8.47 ± 10.54)%. This difference was found for the chow and high fat, high sucrose diets (P = 0.008), and a significant interaction between in vivo measurements, ex vivo measurements, and diet was observed (P = 0.030). Also, the data show a positive significant correlation of ex vivo BMD with body weight, perirenal fat, abdominal fat, and abdominal lean. Multiple linear regression analysis shows that body weight, abdominal fat, and abdominal lean were independently related to ex vivo BMD. DXA underestimated lumbar in vivo BMD in overweight rats, and this measurement error is related to body weight and abdominal fat. Therefore, caution must be used when one is interpreting BMD among overweight and obese individuals. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 67% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 22 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 23% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 9% |
| Professor | 1 | 5% |
| Librarian | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 2 | 9% |
| Unknown | 9 | 41% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 27% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 9% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 9% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 5% |
| Chemistry | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 10 | 45% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 24 February 2017.
All research outputs
#15,521,679
of 23,842,189 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Bone and Mineral Metabolism
#343
of 787 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#247,473
of 424,193 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Bone and Mineral Metabolism
#3
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,842,189 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 787 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its peers.
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 424,193 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.