ArticleCalcified tissue international2026
Methodological Clarification and Analysis of Demographic and Anthropometric Determinants in the Calculation of REMS Bone Mineral Density.
Article in Calcified tissue international, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- In response to Bobelyak et al. (2025), Pocock and Chan (2025) and Chan et al. (2026).Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2026Article
- A rebuttal letter: Author response to: OSIN-D-26-00862: Letter to the Editors: REMS is not just an age and weight calculator.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Radiofrequency echographic multi spectrometry (REMS) derives bone mineral density (BMD) using age- and anthropometry-dependent spectral models and conversion equations. The aim of this paper was to quantify the fraction of REMS BMD that can be explained by demographic and anthropometric variables. We analyzed 8000 proximal-femur and 8000 lumbar-spine REMS scans from Caucasian women, with independent development pools and fixed test sets of 4000 scans each and no significant development-versus-test differences in age, anthropometry, or REMS BMD. In 100 repeated runs, linear regression equations were fitted on random training subsets of 100-400 development scans. The primary anthropometric model equation included age and weight only. A further hypothetical maximum-explainability expanded model additionally included height, squared terms, and pairwise interactions, to explore the upper bound of explainability obtainable from anthropometric inputs alone. At train size 400, primary-model train/test R
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.