Table 4.
Mean | SD | HR per SD decrease | AUC1a | AUC2b | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
FN aBMD | 0.8 | 0.1 | 2.3 (1.6, 3.2) | 0.73 | — |
Tibia 4% | |||||
Total BMC (mg/mm) | 377.2 | 59.2 | 1.7 (1.1, 2.6) | 0.72 | 0.74 |
Trabecular BMC (mg/mm) | 131.8 | 25.4 | 1.2 (0.8, 1.8) | 0.67 | 0.73 |
SSIx (mm3) | 1272.0 | 376.9 | 2.0 (1.3, 3.0) | 0.74 | 0.76 |
SSIp (mm3) | 2407.6 | 681.7 | 1.9 (1.2, 2.9) | 0.74 | 0.76 |
Radius 33% | |||||
Total BMC (mg/mm) | 130.8 | 19.3 | 1.7 (1.2, 2.5) | 0.73 | 0.77 |
Total CSA (mm2) | 144.5 | 19.9 | 1.6 (1.1, 2.2) | 0.69 | 0.75 |
Cortical BMC (mg/mm) | 122.1 | 19.6 | 1.6 (1.1, 2.4) | 0.73 | 0.77 |
Cortical CSA (mm2) | 105.1 | 15.7 | 1.7 (1.2, 2.5) | 0.74 | 0.77 |
Periosteal circumference(mm) | 42.5 | 2.9 | 1.6 (1.1, 2.3) | 0.69 | 0.76 |
CSMI (mm4) | 1296.9 | 314.8 | 2.2 (1.4, 3.3) | 0.75 | 0.80* |
PMI (mm4) | 3095.9 | 780.9 | 2.0 (1.3, 3.1) | 0.74 | 0.78* |
SM | 352.3 | 66.5 | 1.7 (1.2, 2.6) | 0.72 | 0.77** |
SSIx (mm3) | 207.8 | 39.6 | 2.2 (1.4, 3.3) | 0.75 | 0.79* |
SSIp (mm3) | 360.9 | 68.2 | 1.6 (1.1, 2.5) | 0.70 | 0.76** |
Tibia 33% | |||||
Total CSA (mm2) | 457.2 | 52.1 | 1.4 (1.0, 2.0) | 0.64b | 0.73 |
Cortical BMC (mg/mm) | 365.7 | 45.7 | 1.4 (1.0, 2.1) | 0.70 | 0.75 |
Periosteal circumference(mm) | 75.7 | 4.3 | 1.4 (1.0, 2.0) | 0.64b | 0.73 |
PMI (mm4) | 32916.9 | 6917.8 | 1.3 (0.9, 1.9) | 0.64b | 0.73 |
SSIx (mm3) | 1270.5 | 209.0 | 1.4 (1.0, 2.0) | 0.66 | 0.74 |
Tibia 66% | |||||
SM (mm3) | 3360.4 | 572.5 | 1.5 (1.0, 2.2) | 0.73 | 0.76 |
SSIp (mm3) | 3359.0 | 549.2 | 1.6 (1.1, 2.4) | 0.73 | 0.76 |
AUC = area under the ROC curve; BMC = bone mineral content; CSA = cross-sectional area; SSIx = sectional stress-strain index; SSIp = polar stress-strain index; CSMI = cross-sectional moment of inertia; PMI = polar moment of inertia; SM = section modulus.
Note: HR models were adjusted for age, BMI, site, and FN aBMD. Bold = p < .05.
AUC1 for each bone strength parameter (adjusted for age, BMI, and site).
AUC2 for the combined effect of FN aBMD and corresponding bone strength parameter (adjusted for age, BMI, site, and FN aBMD).
p < .05 when compare AUC to model with FN aBMD alone.
.05 < p < .1 when compare AUC to model with FN aBMD alone.