Table IV.

Comparisons of ultimate fracture load versus the product of two characteristics. Shown are the comparisons with highest absolute values of the correlation coefficients from the present study and from our previous study.¹ These are results of Pearson correlation analyses

Characteristics	r-value	p-value
Present study
Areal cortical index (D2-D3) × H1 mmAl	0.790	< 0.001
Areal cortical index (D2-D3) × Mean H1-H3 mmAl	0.786	< 0.001
Areal cortical index (D2-D3) × Mean H1-D1 mmAl	0.770	< 0.001
Areal cortical index (D3-D4) × H1 mmAl	0.792	< 0.001
Areal cortical index (D3-D4) × Mean H1-H3 mmAl	0.770	< 0.001
C-C ratio × Avg. mean CT (D3-D4)	0.794	< 0.001
Previous study
Avg. mean CT (D1-D3) × H1 mmAl	0.821	< 0.001
Avg. mean CT (D3-D4) × H1 mmAl	0.820	< 0.001
Avg. mean CT (D1-D4) × H1 mmAl	0.820	< 0.001
PH volume × Mean H1-D1 mmAl	0.814	< 0.001
Mean CT (D3) × H1 mmAl	0.809	< 0.001
Avg. mean CT (D3-D4) × Mean H1-H3 mmAl	0.804	< 0.001

D2, 2 cm below surgical neck; D3, 5 cm below surgical neck; D4, 7 cm below surgical neck; H, head; mmAl, millimetres of aluminium; C-C, canal-to-calcar ratio (analogous to C-C ratio in proximal femur); Avg., averaged for the D regions shown; CT, cortical thickness; PH, proximal humerus

^*Note that all attempts at dividing any two characteristics revealed no correlations that exceeded the absolute value of r = 0.561