Muscle area estimation from cortical bone

Abstract

This article investigates the relationship between the cortical bone of the radius and the muscle area of the forearm. The aim of this study was to develop a method for muscle area estimation from cortical bone area at 65% of radius length where the muscle area at the forearm is largest. Muscle area and cortical area were measured directly in vivo by peripheral Quantitative Computed Tomography (pQCT). We found significant correlations between muscle area and cortical area (r 5 0.881) in the forearm that are in line with previous studies. We have set up a regression model by testing relevant parameters such as age, sex, forearm length, and stature that were all highly correlated to muscle area. The influence of age and sex on the proportion of muscle area to cortical area is strong and potentially related to the effects of testosterone and estrogen on the muscle-bone-unit. Muscle area estimation from cortical bone is possible with a Percent Standard Error of Estimate (%SEE) ranging from 12.03% to 14.83%, depending on the parameters available and the age and sex of the individual. Muscle area estimation from cortical bone can provide new information for the study of skeletal and/or fossil human remains. Anat Rec, 296:1695Rec, 296: -1707Rec, 296: , 2013. V C 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.Key words: muscle-bone-unit; functional bone-tissue adaptation; pQCT; cortical bone; soft tissue reconstruction This article presents the results of a study that investigates the relationship between the cortical bone of the radius and the muscle area of the forearm. The underlying question of the study is whether it is possible to reasonably estimate muscular properties of the forearm from the cross sectional properties of the forearm bones, and if so, which parameters are required for such an estimation. We hypothesize that cortical bone crosssectional area can predict muscle cross-sectional area, and that such estimations of muscle area could provide valuable information for the study of human skeletal remains. Therefore, we aim to develop a prediction model for muscle area from cortical area.Paleoanthropologists, prehistoric human biologists, and forensic anthropologists almost always rely on skeletal material alone for the reconstruction of body shape and physical capabilities of fossil hominines, prehistoric humans, or unidentified recent skeletal human remains. The reconstruction of soft tissue properties from bone has therefore always been an aim in anthropology, from early attempts to assess the muscularity of Neanderthals from their postcranial dimensions (Klaatsch, 1901;Heim, 1976) to comparative studies on primates (e.g., Baumann, 1926;DeRousseau et al., 1983;Marzke et al., 1999) and modern in vivo studies on muscle activity using electromyography (Wall-Scheffler et al., 2010) or 3D neuromusculoskeletal models for fossil hominids (Nagano et al., 2005). It has also been recognized that data on postcranial muscle tissue might provide anthropologists with valuable information on physical strength, metabolic costs,...

Relationship between body mass, lean mass, fat mass, and limb bone cross‐sectional geometry: Implications for estimating body mass and physique from the skeleton

“…Shaw () reported that bone cross‐sectional geometry was a relatively poor predictor of muscle area at the same cross‐sectional location for the humerus, ulna, and tibia of adult male athletes residing in the United Kingdom, although he reported correlations of up to 0.57 for the humerus, despite adjusting models for body mass (which may have removed a significant portion of any relationship). Slizewski, Schönau, Shaw, and Harvati () and Slizewski, Burger‐Heinrich, Francken, Wahl, and Harvati () reported stronger results for the ulna among a German sample of mixed sex and age.…”

The shrew tamed by Wolff's law: Do functional constraints shape the skull through muscle and bone covariation?

“…Wolff 's law, in its most general sense, stipulates that functional constraints shape bones (Wolff, 1892). Indeed, bone is a plastic material, constantly remodeling when submitted to mechanical constraints (Currey, 2002(Currey, , 2003Sharir et al, 2011;Slizewski et al, 2013). The fact that bone remodels in response to mechanical loading has direct consequences on the evolution of bone shape (Weijs and Hillen, 1986;Hannam and Wood, 1989;Raadsheer et al, 1999;Mavropoulos et al, 2004).…”

The cross-sectional area of the gluteus maximus muscle varies according to habitual exercise loading: Implications for activity-related and evolutionary studies

“…The influence of loading type on muscle size -and through this process, bone mass, structure and strength -is relevant also to current discussions on the reliability of physical activity reconstructions (Jurmain and Roberts, 2008;Jurmain et al, 2012) and when attempting to reconstruct muscle size from bone cortical area (Shaw, 2010;Slizewski et al, 2013Slizewski et al, , 2014, muscle attachment site size (Eshed et al, 2004;Havelková et al, 2011;Lieverse et al, 2009;Wilczak, 1998;Zumwalt, 2006) or metabolic capabilities of past humans and human ancestors (Shaw, 2010). Slizewski et al (2013Slizewski et al ( , 2014 have suggested that due to correlation between cortical area and muscle area cortical areas can be used to reconstruct physical activity.…”

“…Slizewski et al (2013Slizewski et al ( , 2014 have suggested that due to correlation between cortical area and muscle area cortical areas can be used to reconstruct physical activity. Our studies suggest that while endurance runners and swimmers in our sample were active (competing athletes), only athletes in sports involving high magnitude, high or odd impact loadings had greater muscle size compared to controls.…”