skip to main content


Search for: All records

Creators/Authors contains: "Shaw, Colin N."

Note: When clicking on a Digital Object Identifier (DOI) number, you will be taken to an external site maintained by the publisher. Some full text articles may not yet be available without a charge during the embargo (administrative interval).
What is a DOI Number?

Some links on this page may take you to non-federal websites. Their policies may differ from this site.

  1. Abstract Objectives

    Variation in trabecular and cortical bone properties is often used to infer habitual behavior in the past. However, the structures of both types of bone are rarely considered together and may even contradict each other in functional interpretations. We examine trabecular and cortical bone properties in various athletes and sedentary controls to clarify the associations between combinations of cortical and trabecular bone properties and various loading modalities.

    Materials and methods

    We compare trabecular and cortical bone properties using peripheral quantitative computed tomography scans of the tibia between groups of 83 male athletes (running, hockey, swimming, cricket) and sedentary controls using Bayesian multilevel models. We quantify midshaft cortical bone rigidity and area (J, CA), midshaft shape index (Imax/Imin), and mean trabecular bone mineral density (BMD) in the distal tibia.

    Results

    All groups show unique combinations of biomechanical properties. Cortical bone rigidity is high in sports that involve impact loading (cricket, running, hockey) and low in nonimpact loaded swimmers and controls. Runners have more anteroposteriorly elliptical midshafts compared to other groups. Interestingly, all athletes have greater trabecular BMD compared to controls, but do not differ credibly among each other.

    Discussion

    Results suggest that cortical midshaft hypertrophy is associated with impact loading while trabecular BMD is positively associated with both impact and nonimpact loading. Midshaft shape is associated with directionality of loading. Individuals from the different categories overlap substantially, but group means differ credibly, suggesting that nuanced group‐level inferences of habitual behavior are possible when combinations of trabecular and cortical bone are analyzed.

     
    more » « less
  2. Abstract Objective

    This project investigates trabecular bone structural variation in the proximal humerus and femur of hunter‐gatherer, mixed‐strategy agricultural, medieval, and human groups to address three questions: (a) What is the extent of trabecular bone structural variation in the humerus and femur between populations with different inferred activity levels? (b) How does variation in the proximal humerus relate to variation in the proximal femur? (c) Are trabecular bone microstructural variables sexually dimorphic?

    Methods

    The proximal humerus and femur of 73 adults from five human groups with distinct subsistence strategies were scanned using a micro‐computed tomography system. Centralized volumes of interest within the humeral and femoral heads were extracted and analyzed to quantify bone volume fraction, trabecular thickness, trabecular separation, connectivity density, degree of anisotropy, and bone surface density.

    Results

    In the humerus and femur, groups with the highest inferred activity levels have higher bone volume fraction and trabecular thickness, and lower bone surface density than those with lower inferred activity levels. However, the humeral pattern does not exactly mirror that of the femur, which demonstrates a steeper gradient of difference between subsistence groups. No significant differences were identified in trabecular separation. No consistent patterns of sexual dimorphism were present in the humerus or femur.

    Conclusions

    Reduced skeletal robusticity of proximal humeral and femoral trabecular bone corresponds with reduced activity level inferred from subsistence strategy. However, human trabecular bone structural variation is complex and future work should explore how other factors (diet, climate, genetics, disease load, etc.), in addition to activity, influence bone structural variation.

     
    more » « less