Lumbar ontogenetic allometry and dimorphism in humans. A case for comparison between interspecific and intraspecific scaling

2006 ◽  
Vol 42 (4-5) ◽  
pp. 185-192 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. Valverde ◽  
A. Casinos ◽  
C. Alba-Fernández ◽  
L. del Río
2017 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 29-39 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marina Micaela Strelin ◽  
Santiago Benitez‐Vieyra ◽  
Juan Fornoni ◽  
Christian Peter Klingenberg ◽  
Andrea Cocucci

PLoS ONE ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 2 (11) ◽  
pp. e1245 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hongying Li ◽  
Zhongwen Huang ◽  
Junyi Gai ◽  
Song Wu ◽  
Yanru Zeng ◽  
...  

2000 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 112-127 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joanne R. Welsman ◽  
Neil Armstrong

This paper reviews some of the statistical methods available for controlling for body size differences in the interpretation of developmental changes in exercise performance. For cross-sectional data analysis simple per body mass ratio scaling continues to be widely used, but is frequently ineffective as the computed ratio remains correlated with body mass. Linear regression techniques may distinguish group differences more appropriately but, as illustrated, only allometric (log-linear regression) scaling appropriately removes body size differences while accommodating the heteroscedasticity common in exercise performance data. The analysis and interpretation of longitudinal data within an allometric framework is complex. More established methods such as ontogenetic allometry allow insights into individual size-function relationships but are unable to describe adequately population effects or changes in the magnitude of the response. The recently developed multilevel regression modeling technique represents a flexible and sensitive solution to such problems allowing both individual and group responses to be modeled concurrently.


2017 ◽  
Vol 99 (4) ◽  
pp. 331-356 ◽  
Author(s):  
George Lawrence Powell ◽  
Geoffrey J. Osgood ◽  
Anthony P. Russell

2011 ◽  
Vol 294 (11) ◽  
pp. 1864-1874 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paula N. Gonzalez ◽  
S. Ivan Perez ◽  
Valeria Bernal

PeerJ ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. e818 ◽  
Author(s):  
Caleb Marshall Brown ◽  
Matthew J. Vavrek

1963 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 167-192 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. G. Cock

Body-weight and shank length from 2 weeks of age to adult (and from 8 weeks onwards, shank width) have been measured on 154 fowls all hatched on the same date, belonging to two F1 breed crosses: White Leghorn × Rhode Island Red (L × R) and Indian Game × Light Sussex (G × S). After logarithmic transformation the data have first been analysed cross-sectionally (analysis of the age-means for each sex and cross). A longitudinal analysis (fitting a regression line to the data of each individual) has then been made of the approximately linear portions of the curves. The following conclusions are drawn.(1) Growth in shank length relative to body-weight between 2 and 10 weeks conforms closely to simple allometry. The coefficient of ontogenetic allometry (heter-auxesis), k, is approximately 0·4, being 0·02 higher in L × R than in G × S and 0·05 higher in males than in females. In females k declines (eventually to zero) after 10 weeks; the decline occurs about 4 weeks later in males. For shank width relative to body-weight k is about 0·25.(2) At a given body-weight males have longer and thicker shanks than females; L × R have longer but thinner shanks than G × S.(3) Within sexes and crosses there is highly significant individual variation in k, but the allometry lines do not pass, within the limits of error, through any single point. This implies that variation in relative shank length is complex in its ontogenetic origin.(4) There is no appreciable correlation within sexes and crosses between shank width and shank length at a given body-weight; this implies (as does (2)) that variation is also complex anatomically.(5) Differences in shape and rate-of-change of shape contribute only a small part of the total variation within sexes and crosses; most is due to differences in general size and general growth rate.(6) Shank width at a given body-weight is positively correlated with body-weight at a given age (r = + 0·36 within sexes and crosses). This agrees with the finding that the coefficient of static allometry (allomorphosis) for shank width is much higher than the ontogenetic coefficient. For shank length the ontogenetic and static coefficients are approximately the same.


2016 ◽  
Vol 277 (9) ◽  
pp. 1159-1167 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christy A. Hipsley ◽  
Marc-Nicolas Rentinck ◽  
Mark-Oliver Rödel ◽  
Johannes Müller

1995 ◽  
Vol 27 (Supplement) ◽  
pp. S112
Author(s):  
G. P. Beunen ◽  
D. M. Rogers ◽  
R. M. Malina ◽  
B. Woynarowska

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document