Skip to main content

Table 3 Results of simulation studies: distribution of correlations between variables, regression coefficients, and frequency of "significance" results

From: Contributions of lean mass and fat mass to bone mineral density: a study in postmenopausal women

Parameters

Sample size

 

50

100

200

300

400

500

1000

Correlation between

       

   Fat mass and weight*

0.83

0.83

0.83

0.83

0.83

0.83

0.83

 

0.74

0.77

0.79

0.80

0.80

0.80

0.81

 

0.89

0.88

0.86

0.86

0.85

0.85

0.84

   Lean mass and weight*

0.80

0.80

0.80

0.80

0.80

0.80

0.80

 

0.70

0.73

0.76

0.76

0.77

0.77

0.78

 

0.87

0.85

0.84

0.83

0.83

0.82

0.82

   Fat mass and lean mass*

0.37

0.37

0.37

0.37

0.37

0.37

0.37

 

0.15

0.22

0.27

0.28

0.29

0.30

0.32

 

0.56

0.50

0.46

0.45

0.43

0.43

0.41

   Fat mass and LSBMD*

0.21

0.20

0.20

0.20

0.20

0.20

0.20

 

-0.04

0.04

0.09

0.11

0.12

0.13

0.15

 

0.42

0.35

0.31

0.29

0.28

0.27

0.25

   Lean mass and LSBMD*

0.34

0.34

0.34

0.34

0.34

0.34

0.34

 

0.12

0.19

0.24

0.26

0.27

0.27

0.29

 

0.53

0.48

0.44

0.42

0.41

0.40

0.38

Regression coefficient**

       

   Lean mass

0.011

0.011

0.011

0.011

0.011

0.011

0.011

 

0.002

0.005

0.007

0.007

0.008

0.008

0.009

 

0.019

0.015

0.015

0.014

0.014

0.013

0.013

   Fat mass

0.003

0.002

0.003

0.003

0.003

0.003

0.003

 

-0.005

-0.002

-0.001

-0.000

0.000

0.000

0.001

 

0.010

0.007

0.006

0.005

0.005

0.005

0.004

Frequency (%) of "significance" †

       

   Not lean mass, not fat mass

37.4

10.9

0.3

0.02

0.0

0.0

0.0

   Lean mass, not fat mass

52.9

75.6

75.6

67.7

58.8

50.6

22.1

   Fat mass, not lean mass

6.3

3.8

0.5

0.05

0.0

0.0

0.0

   Lean mass and fat mass

3.4

9.7

23.6

32.2

41.2

49.4

77.8

  1. *For each pair of variables, the values are average coefficient (first row), lower 95% confidence interval (second row) and upper 95% confidence interval (third row).
  2. Ten thousand pseudo-studies were simulated; each study had 50, 100, 200, 300, 400, 500, and 1000 individuals. The results presented here represent summaries of 10,000 iterations.
  3. **The model considered was: LSBMD = a + b(lean mass) + c(fat mass). The figures shown here are estimates of b (for lean mass) and c (for fat mass). For each parameter, the numbers are median, 5th and 95th percentiles (in brackets).
  4. †The "significance" was defined as P < 0.05 for each or both regression coefficients.
Back to article page

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders

ISSN: 1471-2474

Contact us