[PDF][PDF] Bone histomorphometry: standardization of nomenclature, symbols, and units: report of the ASBMR Histomorphometry Nomenclature Committee

AM Parfitt, MK Drezner, FH Glorieux… - Journal of bone …, 1987 - courses.washington.edu
AM Parfitt, MK Drezner, FH Glorieux, JA Kanis, H Malluche, PJ Meunier, SM Ott, RR Recker
Journal of bone and mineral research, 1987courses.washington.edu
P with each other in a variety of arcane languages, which in general are unintelligible to
those outside the field. Many in the bone and mineral scientific community would like to keep
abreast of the contributions of histology to their subject, but are dismayed by the semantic
barriers they must overcome. The need for standardization has been recognized for many
years,(') during which there has been much talk but no action. To meet the needs of ASBMR
members, Dr. BL Riggs (President, 1985-1986) asked the senior author to convene a …
P with each other in a variety of arcane languages, which in general are unintelligible to those outside the field. Many in the bone and mineral scientific community would like to keep abreast of the contributions of histology to their subject, but are dismayed by the semantic barriers they must overcome. The need for standardization has been recognized for many years,(') during which there has been much talk but no action. To meet the needs of ASBMR members, Dr. BL Riggs (President, 1985-1986) asked the senior author to convene a committee of the Society to develop a unified system of termnology, suitable for adoption by the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research as part of its Instructions to Authors. The committee includes members from Europe and Canada as well as the US, and represents most existing systems of nomenclature. A circular letter seeking suggestions and information on current usage was sent to several hundred persons, with names drawn from the Society membership roster and lists of attendees at various recent conferences, to which approximately 40 replies were obtained. These confirmed the magnitude of the semantic problem (for some measurements as many as nine different terms were in use) and suggested a range of solutions likely to be generally acceptable. In formulating the new system. the committee kept in mind certain agreed general principles. First, the primary reason for change was to help other scientists understand bone histomorphometry, not to help bone histomorphometrists undcntand each other. Second. names should be self-explanatory and dcscriptive, without implicit assumptions. Third. symbols should consist mainly of abbreviations that included the first letter of each word in the same order as in the name. without subscripts or superscripts. Fourth. each symbol component should have one and only one meaning, and so eliminate ambiguity. Fifth, primary measurements should be clearly distinguished from derived indices. Finally, the chosen system should be sufficiently flexible to apply to all surfaces and all types of bone, and to accommodate any new primary measurement or derived index.
The recommended system shares common elements with. but also differs substantially from. all those in current usc. was tested in practice for several months before the final forniat was chosen, and is as complex and conceptually difficult; I\the field with which it deals. For those within the field we hope that increased readership of their papers will be adequate conipensation for the inconvcnicncc of learning a new systcm. For those outside the field, mastering the new system will be hard work, but if we are able to secure its acceptance by all journals with an interest in bone and mineral metabolism, the effort will only have to be expended once rather than. as at present. rcpeated many times. To this end we give the reasons for our decisions in the areas of controversy and, as well as definitions, provide methods for calculation of derived indices and
courses.washington.edu