Standardised Nomenclature, Abbreviations, and Units for the Study of Bone Marrow Adiposity: Report of the Nomenclature Working Group of the International Bone Marrow Adiposity Society.
Bravenboer N., Bredella MA., Chauveau C., Corsi A., Douni E., Ferris WF.
Narrative Review, published in Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) (2019) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.
Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.
- Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
- Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
- Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
- Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
- Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.
- Study type
- Narrative Review
- Journal
- Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) (2019)
- Country
- Switzerland
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- PubMed
- PMID
- 32038486
- DOI
- 10.3389/fendo.2019.00923
Abstract (original English)
Research into bone marrow adiposity (BMA) has expanded greatly since the late 1990s, leading to development of new methods for the study of bone marrow adipocytes. Simultaneously, research fields interested in BMA have diversified substantially. This increasing interest is revealing fundamental new knowledge of BMA; however, it has also led to a highly variable nomenclature that makes it difficult to interpret and compare results from different studies. A consensus on BMA nomenclature has therefore become indispensable. This article addresses this critical need for standardised terminology and consistent reporting of parameters related to BMA research. The International Bone Marrow Adiposity Society (BMAS) was formed in 2017 to consolidate the growing scientific community interested in BMA. To address the BMA nomenclature challenge, BMAS members from diverse fields established a working group (WG). Based on their broad expertise, the WG first reviewed the existing, unsystematic nomenclature and identified terms, and concepts requiring further discussion. They thereby identified and defined 8 broad concepts and methods central to BMA research. Notably, these had been described using 519 unique combinations of term, abbreviation and unit, many of which were overlapping or redundant. On this foundation a second consensus was reached, with each term classified as " to use " or " no
What this study does not prove
- • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
- • This is a narrative review: it collects no new patient data and does not systematically appraise evidence quality.
Evidence level
Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.
How we grade evidenceBrowse all related research
Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.