A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Bone Marrow Adiposity and Fragility Fractures in Postmenopausal Women: The ADIMOS Case-Control Study. | LitMetric

Context: Noninvasive assessment of proton density fat fraction (PDFF) by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) may improve the prediction of fractures.

Objective: This work aimed to determine if an association exists between PDFF and fractures.

Methods: A case-control study was conducted at Lille University Hospital, Lille, France, with 2 groups of postmenopausal women: one with recent osteoporotic fractures, and the other with no fractures. Lumbar spine and proximal femur (femoral head, neck, and diaphysis) PDFF were determined using chemical shift-based water-fat separation MRI (WFI) and dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry scans of the lumbar spine and hip. Our primary objective was to determine the relationship between lumbar spine PDFF and osteoporotic fractures in postmenopausal women. Analysis of covariance was used to compare PDFF measurements between patient cases (overall and according to the type of fracture) and controls, after adjusting for age, Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) and BMD.

Results: In 199 participants, controls (n = 99) were significantly younger (P < .001) and had significantly higher BMD (P < 0.001 for all sites) than patient cases (n = 100). A total of 52 women with clinical vertebral fractures and 48 with nonvertebral fractures were included. When PDFFs in patient cases and controls were compared, after adjustment on age, CCI, and BMD, no statistically significant differences between the groups were found at the lumbar spine or proximal femur. When PDFFs in participants with clinical vertebral fractures (n = 52) and controls were compared, femoral neck PDFF and femoral diaphysis PDFF were detected to be lower in participants with clinical vertebral fractures than in controls (adjusted mean [SE] 79.3% [1.2] vs 83.0% [0.8]; P = 0.020, and 77.7% [1.4] vs 81.6% [0.9]; P = 0.029, respectively).

Conclusion: No difference in lumbar spine PDFF was found between those with osteoporotic fractures and controls. However, imaging-based proximal femur PDFF may discriminate between postmenopausal women with and without clinical vertebral fractures, independently of age, CCI, and BMD.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1210/clinem/dgad195DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

lumbar spine
20
postmenopausal women
16
clinical vertebral
16
vertebral fractures
16
osteoporotic fractures
12
proximal femur
12
patient cases
12
fractures controls
12
fractures
10
pdff
9

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!