Table 2 Association results of BMI, FM and LM with bone phenotypes at baseline (n = 1,743).

From: Association of body composition with predicted hip bone strength among Chinese postmenopausal women: a longitudinal study

  

Linear regression model

GAM Adjusted R2

sβ

SE

P

Adjusted R2

BMD (g/cm 2 )

Model 1

BMI (kg/m2)

0.326

0.001

<0.001

0.253

0.256

Model 4

FM (kg)

0.180

0.001

<0.001

0.255

0.256

LM (kg)

0.228

0.001

<0.001

CSA (cm 2 )

Model 1

BMI (kg/m2)

0.385

0.002

<0.001

0.387

0.390

Model 4

FM (kg)

0.156

0.002

<0.001

0.395

0.400

LM (kg)

0.329

0.003

<0.001

CT (cm)

Model 1

BMI (kg/m2)

0.320

0.001

<0.001

0.243

0.246

Model 4

FM (kg)

0.182

0.001

<0.001

0.244

0.246

LM (kg)

0.215

0.001

<0.001

SM (cm 3 )

Model 1

BMI (kg/m2)

0.295

0.001

<0.001

0.351

0.353

Model 4

FM (kg)

0.042

0.001

0.102

0.365

0.367

LM (kg)

0.371

0.001

<0.001

BR

Model 1

BMI (kg/m2)

−0.177

0.019

<0.001

0.127

0.132

Model 4

FM (kg)

−0.153

0.017

<0.001

0.127

0.130

LM (kg)

−0.089

0.022

0.010

  1. Both in the linear regression model and GAM model, bone phenotype was the dependent variable, and BMI (Model 1), or FM and LM (Model 4) were the predictor variables with age, height, YSM, physical activity, energy adjusted dietary calcium intake and calcium tablets intake as the covariates. P values less than 0.05 were indicated in bold. BMI, body mass index; FM, fat mass; LM, lean mass; BMD, bone mineral density; CSA, cross sectional area; CT, cortical thickness; SM, section modulus; BR, buckling ratio; sβ, standardized β.
Back to article page