A multi‐method assessment of bone maintenance and loss in an<scp>I</scp>mperial<scp>R</scp>oman population: Implications for future studies of age‐related bone loss in the past

Beauchesne, Patrick; Agarwal, Sabrina C.

doi:10.1002/ajpa.23256

Cited by 20 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 162 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While some archeological samples show temporal and/or spatial patterns of bone loss, many do not, and many populations in the past show different patterns of bone loss and fragility than the normative patterns observed in modern Western populations (Agarwal, 2008). For example, bone loss in young age and in both sexes has been noted in other studies (Agarwal, 2012; Agarwal & Grynpas, 1996, 2009; Beauchesne & Agarwal, 2014; Beauchesne & Agarwal, 2017; Brødholt et al, 2021; Ekenman et al, 1995; Holck, 2007; Lees et al, 1993; Weaver, 1998), and age‐related loss is also often very similar between the sexes in some populations (Agarwal et al, 2004; Brickley, 2002; Cho & Stout, 2011; Ekenman et al, 1995; Holck, 2007; Wilson et al, 2020). These patterns often deviate from industrialized populations, and reflect context specific influences of lifestyle and activity patterns.…”

Section: Variation and Plasticity: The Archeological Perspectivesupporting

confidence: 54%

“…Fragility fractures in the past also seem to occur at far lower frequencies than in modern populations (Agarwal, 2008; Ives et al, 2017). Finally, studies that examine age‐ and sex‐related patterns of bone loss across the skeleton (e.g., Beauchesne & Agarwal, 2017) are able to demonstrate the fluid patterns of bone loss across the different remodeling cortical and trabecular envelopes.…”

Section: Variation and Plasticity: The Archeological Perspectivementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

What is normal bone health? A bioarchaeological perspective on meaningful measures and interpretations of bone strength, loss, and aging

Agarwal

2021

American J Hum Biol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bioarchaeological (the study of archeological human remains together with contextual and documentary evidence) offers a unique vantage point to examine variation in skeletal morphology related to influences such as activity, disease, and nutrition. The human skeleton is composed of a dynamic tissue that is forged by biocultural factors over the entire life course, providing a record of individual, and community history. Various aspects of adult bone health, particularly bone maintenance and loss and the associated skeletal disease osteoporosis, have been examined in numerous past populations. The anthropological study of bone loss has traditionally focused on the signature of postmenopausal aging, costs of reproduction, and fragility in females. The a priori expectation of normative sex‐related bone loss/fragility in bioanthropological studies illustrates the wider gender‐ideological bias that continues in research design and data analysis in the field. Contextualized data on bone maintenance and aging in the archeological record show that patterns of bone loss do not constitute predictable consequences of aging or biological sex. Instead, the critical examination of bioarchaeological data highlights the complex and changing processes that craft the human body over the life course, and calls for us to question the ideal or “normal” range of bone quantity and quality in the human skeleton, and to critically reflect on what measures are actually biologically and/or socially meaningful.

show abstract

Section: Variation and Plasticity: The Archeological Perspectivesupporting

confidence: 54%

Section: Variation and Plasticity: The Archeological Perspectivementioning

confidence: 99%

What is normal bone health? A bioarchaeological perspective on meaningful measures and interpretations of bone strength, loss, and aging

Agarwal

2021

American J Hum Biol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Sexual differences regarding cortical bone loss have been expressed in studies involving both modern (e.g., Barnett & Nordin, 1960;Ginsburg, Kobyliansky, Malkin, & Rudan, 2001;Karasik, Ginsburg, Livshits, Pavlovsky, & Kobyliansky, 2000;Virtamä & Helelä, 1969) and archeological samples (e.g., Agarwal, Glencross, & Beauchesne, 2011;Carlson, Armelagos, & Gerven, 1976;Cho & Stout, 2011;Dewey, Armelagos, & Bartley, 1969;Drusini, Bredariol, Carrara, & Bonati, 2000;Ives, 2007;Mays et al, 1998;Umbelino et al, 2016). Other paleopathological studies found no differences between sexes (e.g., Beauchesne & Agarwal, 2014;Beauchesne & Agarwal, 2017;Mays, 1996).…”

Section: Fragility Fracturesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Cortical bone loss occurs mostly through intracortical remodelling (Zebaze & Seeman, ). Radiogrammetry, a method that determines the amplitude or geometry of the cortical bone in tubular bones, is suitable to evaluate cortical bone loss in historical/archeological contexts (e.g., Beauchesne & Agarwal, , ; Glencross & Agarwal, ; Ives & Brickley, ; Lazenby, ; Mays, , , ; Mays, Lees, & Stevenson, ; Umbelino et al, ). Metacarpal radiogrammetry was independently and formally described in 1960 (Barnett & Nordin, ; Virtamä & Mähönen, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Metacarpal cortical bone loss and osteoporotic fractures in the Coimbra Identified Skeletal Collection

Curate

Perinha

Silva

et al. 2018

Intl J of Osteoarchaeology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There has been considerable progress in recent years in our understanding of the patterns of cortical bone loss in the second metacarpal in archeological skeletal samples. Nevertheless, cortical data from reference skeletal collections are insufficient, and the possible connection of metacarpal cortical parameters with osteoporotic fractures has not been thoroughly addressed. As such, this article aims to identify and explain sex‐specific and age‐associated metacarpal cortical bone loss in a large sample (N = 302; females: 154/males: 148) from the Coimbra Identified Skeletal Collection. Another objective is to evaluate the association of cortical and demographic features with osteoporotic fractures. Age‐related endocortical bone loss is significant in women but not evident in men. Periosteal accretion of the bone is absent in both sexes. Overall, there is a net loss of the cortical bone in women, whereas cortical bone strength seems to be preserved in men. The prevalence of osteoporotic fractures is similar in both sexes, with age at death significantly influencing the probability of exhibiting a fracture. Metacarpal cortical index does not seem to be an independent risk factor for osteoporotic fractures in this sample.

show abstract

“…For bioarcheologists, traditional radiogrammetry has proven easily accessible in field and laboratory contexts and continues to be used as a key method for investigating age‐related bone loss and osteoporosis in past populations (e.g., Beauchesne & Agarwal, 2011, 2017; Curate et al, 2019; Umbelino et al, 2019). This method is limited by the requirement that metacarpal radiogrammetric measurements should be taken at the midshaft, meaning only complete elements can be reliably measured (Ives & Brickley, 2004).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quantifying cortical bone in fragmentary archeological second metacarpals

Gilmour

Brickley

Hoogland

et al. 2021

American J Phys Anthropol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: Skeletal variation in cortical bone thickness is an indicator of bone quality and health in archeological populations. Second metacarpal radiogrammetry, which measures cortical thickness at the shaft midpoint, is traditionally used to evaluate bone loss in bioarcheological and some clinical contexts. However fragmentary elements are regularly omitted because the midpoint cannot be determined. This methodological limitation reduces sample sizes and biases them against individuals prone to fracture, such as older individuals with low bone mass. This study introduces a new technique for measuring cortical bone in second metacarpals, the "Region of Interest" (ROI) method, which quantifies bone in archeological remains with less-than-ideal preservation while accounting for cortical heterogeneity. Materials and methods: The ROI method was adapted from digital X-ray radiogrammetry (DXR), a clinical method used to estimate bone mineral density, and tested using second metacarpals from Middenbeemster, Netherlands, a 19th century known age and sex skeletal collection. The ROI method quantifies cortical bone area within a 1.9 cm-long, mid-diaphyseal region, standardized for body size differences using total area (CAI ROI). CAI ROI values were compared to traditional radiogrammetric cortical indices (CI) to assess the method's ability to identify age-related bone loss. Results: CAI ROI values have high intra-and interobserver replicability and are strongly and significantly correlated with CI values for both males (r[n = 39] = 0.906, p = 0.000) and females (r[n = 58] = 0.925, p = 0.000). Conclusion: The ROI method complements traditional radiogrammetry analyses and provides a reliable way to quantify cortical bone in incomplete second metacarpals, thereby maximizing sample sizes, allowing patterns in bone acquisition and loss to be more comprehensively depicted in archeological assemblages.

show abstract

A multi‐method assessment of bone maintenance and loss in anImperialRoman population: Implications for future studies of age‐related bone loss in the past

Cited by 20 publications

References 162 publications

What is normal bone health? A bioarchaeological perspective on meaningful measures and interpretations of bone strength, loss, and aging

What is normal bone health? A bioarchaeological perspective on meaningful measures and interpretations of bone strength, loss, and aging

Metacarpal cortical bone loss and osteoporotic fractures in the Coimbra Identified Skeletal Collection

Quantifying cortical bone in fragmentary archeological second metacarpals

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About