[This corrects the article on p. 219 in vol. 8, PMID: 28912754.]

Fulford, AJ

Goldberg, G

Jarjou, LM

Prentice, A

Sawo, Y

Schoenmakers, I

Ward, KA

Zengin, A

Frontiers in Endocrinology

There was a mistake in the values in Table 4 in the parameters total % fat, android fat mass, gynoid fat mass, aLM, android lean mass, and gynoid lean mass. The correct version of Table 4 appears below. The authors apologize for the mistake. This error does not change the scientific conclusions of the article. The nutritional intake data in Table 2 was incorrectly labeled. The correct version of Table 2 appears below. We have also edited the interpretation of the data in the Results section from: Overall, women had higher intakes of all micronutrients. Some notable sex differences include a 21% greater daily habitual calcium intake in women than in men (Table 2). The greatest sex difference was seen in daily habitual iron intake, where women had a 33% greater daily iron intake compared to men. Across the age bands, daily habitual calcium intake [mean (SD)] was 295.9 (175.9) mg/day in men and 378.0 (176.0) mg/day in women (Table 2). To: Overall, men had higher intakes of all micronutrients. Some notable sex differences include a 21% greater daily habitual calcium intake in men than in women (Table 2). The greatest sex difference was seen in daily habitual iron intake, where men had a 33% greater daily iron intake compared to women. Across the age bands, daily habitual calcium intake [mean (SD)] was 378.0 (176.0) mg/day in men and 295.9 (175.9) mg/day in women (Table 2). This error does not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way.</p

Zengin, Ayse

Fulford, Anthony J.

Sawo, Yankuba

Jarjou, Landing M.

Schoenmakers, Inez

Goldberg, Gail

Prentice, Ann

Ward, Kate A.

Monash University Research Portal

Corrigendum:The Gambian bone and muscle ageing study: Baseline data from a prospective observational African sub-Saharan study [Front Endocrinol, 8, (2017), (219)] doi: 10.3389/fendo.2017.00219

Ayse Zengin

Anthony J. Fulford

Yankuba Sawo

Landing M. Jarjou

Inez Schoenmakers

Gail Goldberg

Ann Prentice

Kate A. Ward

Frontiers - Publisher Connector

Corrigendum: The Gambian Bone and Muscle Ageing Study: Baseline Data From a Prospective Observational African Sub-Saharan Study

LSHTM Research Online

Zengin, A; Fulford, AJ; Sawo, Y; Jarjou, LM; Schoenmakers, I; Gold-berg, G; Prentice, A; Ward, KA (2018) Corrigendum: The GambianBone and Muscle Ageing Study: Baseline Data From a ProspectiveObservational African Sub-Saharan Study. Frontiers Media.Downloaded from: http://researchonline.lshtm.ac.uk/4647526/DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2018.00160Usage GuidelinesPlease refer to usage guidelines at http://researchonline.lshtm.ac.uk/policies.html or alterna-tively contact researchonline@lshtm.ac.uk.Available under license: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/April 2018 | Volume 9 | Article 1601CorreCtionpublished: 16 April 2018doi: 10.3389/fendo.2018.00160Frontiers in Endocrinology | www.frontiersin.orgEdited by: Giacomina Brunetti, Università degli studi di Bari Aldo Moro, ItalyReviewed by: Antonia Sophocleous, University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom*Correspondence:Kate A. Ward  kw@mrc.soton.ac.uk†These authors have joint senior authorship.Specialty section: This article was submitted to Bone Research, a section of the journal Frontiers in EndocrinologyReceived: 09 March 2018Accepted: 26 March 2018Published: 16 April 2018Citation: Zengin A, Fulford AJ, Sawo Y, Jarjou LM, Schoenmakers I, Goldberg G, Prentice A and Ward KA (2018) Corrigendum: The Gambian Bone and Muscle Ageing Study: Baseline Data From a Prospective Observational African Sub-Saharan Study. Front. Endocrinol. 9:160. doi: 10.3389/fendo.2018.00160Corrigendum: the Gambian  Bone and Muscle Ageing Study: Baseline Data From a Prospective observational African Sub-SaharanStudy Ayse Zengin1,2, Anthony J. Fulford3, Yankuba Sawo4, Landing M. Jarjou4,  Inez Schoenmakers1,5, Gail Goldberg1,4, Ann Prentice1,4† and Kate A. Ward1,6*†1 Nutrition and Bone Health Group, MRC Elsie Widdowson Laboratory, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 2 Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Department of Medicine, School of Clinical Sciences at Monash Health, Monash University, Monash Medical Centre, Clayton, VIC, Australia, 3 International Nutritional Group, London School of Hygiene  and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom, 4 Calcium, Vitamin D and Bone Health Group at MRC Unit The Gambia, Banjul, Gambia, 5 Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Department of Medicine, University of East Anglia, Norwich, United Kingdom, 6 MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton, United KingdomKeywords: bone, ageing, Africa, muscle, dual energy X-ray absorptiometry, non-communicable disease, GambiaA corrigendum onThe Gambian Bone and Muscle Ageing Study: Baseline Data from a Prospective Observational African Sub-Saharan Studyby Zengin A, Fulford AJ, Sawo Y, Jarjou LM, Schoenmakers I, Goldberg G, et al. Front Endocrinol (2017) 8:219. doi: 10.3389/fendo.2017.00219There was a mistake in the values in Table 4 in the parameters total % fat, android fat mass, gynoid fat mass, aLM, android lean mass, and gynoid lean mass. The correct version of Table 4  appears below. The authors apologize for the mistake. This error does not change the scientific conclusions of the article.The nutritional intake data in Table 2 was incorrectly labeled. The correct version of Table 2 appears below. We have also edited the interpretation of the data in the Results section from:Overall, women had higher intakes of all micronutrients. Some notable sex differences include a 21% greater daily habitual calcium intake in women than in men (Table 2). The greatest sex difference tABle 2 | Nutritional intake of men and women.Men (n = 225)a Women (n = 242)a p-valueCalcium (mg/day) 378.0 ± 176.0 295.9 ± 175.9 <0.0001Phosphorus (mg/day) 836.4 ± 275.4 620.2 ± 243.4 <0.0001Iron (mg/day) 37.2 ± 25.8 25.0 ± 16.5 <0.0001Zinc (mg/day) 9.3 ± 3.0 7.0 ± 2.8 <0.0001Dietary fibres (mg/day) 44.4 ± 14.2 33.9 ± 12.4 <0.0001Phytate (g/day) 1.3 ± 0.5 1.0 ± 0.4 <0.0001Potassium (mg/day) 2,409.0 ± 868.9 1,800.1 ± 705.4 <0.0001Magnesium (mg/day) 527.3 ± 192.9 388.4 ± 150.4 <0.0001Values are mean ± SD.Bold indicates significance.Dietary intakes were estimated from 2-day weighed diet diaries, and intakes calculated from Gambian food tables.a21 participants did not have dietary information available.2Zengin et al.Gambian Bone and Muscle Ageing StudyFrontiers in Endocrinology | www.frontiersin.orgApril 2018 | Volume 9 | Article 160tABle 4 | Anthropometry and body composition in women.40–44  (n = 28)45–49  (n = 32)50–54  (n = 30)55–59  (n = 31)60–64  (n = 31)65–69  (n = 33)70–74  (n = 30)75+  (n = 34)β-coefficient  (95% Ci)p-valueWeight (kg) 58.1 ± 11.5 60.8 ± 11.4 57.1 ± 10.8 53.8 ± 9.6 53.4 ± 7.2 53.5 ± 9.6 52.2 ± 9.9 49.3 ± 8.5 −0.26 (−0.35, −0.16) <0.0001Height (cm) 159.3 ± 5.1 159.8 ± 6.1 158.6 ± 6.2 158.1 ± 5.8 157.6 ± 4.9 160.1 ± 5.7 154.8 ± 5.7 154.0 ± 5.7 −0.14 (−0.20, −0.09) <0.0001Sitting height (cm) 81.7 ± 2.8 81.2 ± 3.5 80.4 ± 2.9 79.1 ± 3.8 79.5 ± 3.1 80.2 ± 3.5 77.8 ± 3.3 76.5 ± 3.3 −0.13 (−0.16, −0.09) <0.0001Sit:Stand height ratio 0.51 ± 0.02 0.51 ± 0.01 0.51 ± 0.02 0.50 ± 0.02 0.50 ± 0.01 0.50 ± 0.02 0.50 ± 0.02 0.50 ± 0.01 −0.0004 (−0.0005, −0.0002) <0.0001BMI 22.9 ± 4.4 23.9 ± 4.4 22.7 ± 4.3 21.4 ± 3.1 21.4 ± 2.3 20.8 ± 3.2 21.7 ± 3.7 20.7 ± 2.8 −0.07 (−0.10, −0.03) <0.0001Waist circumference (cm) 70.7 ± 10.1 75.7 ± 9.7 72.0 ± 8.6 70.6 ± 6.6 71.4 ± 6.3(n=29) 71.0 ± 7.1(n=29) 73.3 ± 8.5(n=23) 68.4 ± 5.4(n=19) −0.06 (−0.14, 0.03) 0.203Total body fat mass (kg) 18.4 ± 8.7(n=27) 20.7 ± 9.3 18.3 ± 8.3 16.3 ± 6.7(n=30) 16.0 ± 4.8 16.1 ± 6.8 16.4 ± 6.7(n=29) 14.1 ± 5.5(n=30) −0.12 (−0.20, −0.05) 0.001Total % fat 30.3 ± 8.1(n=27) 32.5 ± 10.0 30.8 ± 8.7 29.3 ± 8.2(n=30) 29.6 ± 6.0 29.0 ± 7.6 30.4 ± 7.9(n=29) 27.9 ± 7.1(n=30) −0.07 (−0.15, 0.01) 0.09Android fat mass (kg) 1.1 ± 0.9(n=27) 1.3 ± 0.8 1.2 ± 0.8 0.9 ± 0.5(n=30) 0.9 ± 0.4 1.0 ± 0.6 1.0 ± 0.6(n=29) 0.8 ± 0.5(n=31) −0.008 (−0.01, −0.001) 0.02Gynoid fat mass (kg) 4.1 ± 1.5(n=27) 4.3 ± 1.6 3.9 ± 1.3 3.4 ± 1.2 3.5 ± 1.0 3.4 ± 1.2 3.2 ± 1.1 2.9 ± 1.0(n=33) −0.03 (−0.04, −0.02) <0.0001FMI (kg/m2) 7.2 ± 3.4(n=27) 8.1 ± 3.7 7.3 ± 3.4 6.5 ± 2.6(n=30) 6.4 ± 1.8 6.2 ± 2.5 6.9 ± 2.7(n=29) 6.0 ± 2.2(n=30) −0.04 (−0.07, −0.01) 0.009Total body lean mass (kg) 36.7 ± 4.1(n=27) 37.0 ± 4.4 35.7 ± 4.0 35.0 ± 4.5(n=30) 34.7 ± 3.6 34.7 ± 3.4 33.4 ± 4.7(n=29) 32.5 ± 4.3(n=30) −0.11 (−0.16, −0.07) <0.0001aLM (kg) 16.9 ± 2.3(n=27) 16.9 ± 2.2 16.1 ± 2.3 15.6 ± 2.3 15.4 ± 2.1 15.3 ± 2.0 14.7 ± 2.4 14.1 ± 2.2 −0.07 (−0.10, −0.05) <0.0001Android lean mass (kg) 2.3 ± 0.3(n=27) 2.4 ± 0.4 2.3 ± 0.3 2.2 ± 0.3(n=30) 2.2 ± 0.2 2.2 ± 0.2 2.2 ± 0.4(n=29) 2.2 ± 0.3(n=31) −0.006 (−0.009, −0.003) 0.001Gynoid lean mass (kg) 5.2 ± 0.9(n=27) 5.2 ± 0.7 5.0 ± 0.6 4.7 ± 0.8 4.8 ± 0.7 4.8 ± 0.7 4.5 ± 0.7 4.4 ± 0.6(n=33) −0.02 (−0.03, −0.01) <0.0001aLMI (kg/m2) 6.6 ± 0.8(n=27) 6.6 ± 0.8 6.4 ± 0.7 6.2 ± 0.6 6.2 ± 0.7 5.9 ± 0.6 6.1 ± 0.8 5.9 ± 0.7 −0.02 (−0.03, −0.01) <0.0001Values are mean ± SD.β-coefficients are calculated with age as a continuous variable.Superscript values indicate the group numbers.Bold indicates significance. BMI, body mass index; FMI, fat mass index, calculated as whole body fat mass divided by height squared; aLM, appendicular lean mass; aLMI, appendicular lean mass index, calculated as appendicular lean mass divided by height squared.3Zengin et al. Gambian Bone and Muscle Ageing StudyFrontiers in Endocrinology | www.frontiersin.org April 2018 | Volume 9 | Article 160Conflict of Interest Statement: The authors declare that the research was con-ducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.Copyright © 2018 Zengin, Fulford, Sawo, Jarjou, Schoenmakers, Goldberg, Prentice and Ward. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.was seen in daily habitual iron intake, where women had a 33% greater daily iron intake compared to men. Across the age bands, daily habitual calcium intake [mean (SD)] was 295.9 (175.9) mg/day in men and 378.0 (176.0) mg/day in women (Table 2).To:Overall, men had higher intakes of all micronutrients. Some notable sex differences include a 21% greater daily habitual cal-cium intake in men than in women (Table 2). The greatest sex difference was seen in daily habitual iron intake, where men had a 33% greater daily iron intake compared to women. Across the age bands, daily habitual calcium intake [mean (SD)] was 378.0 (176.0) mg/day in men and 295.9 (175.9) mg/day in women (Table 2).This error does not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way.The original article has been updated.

Corrigendum: The Gambian Bone and Muscle Ageing Study: Baseline Data From a Prospective Observational African Sub-Saharan Study.

Southampton (e-Prints Soton)

Corrigendum: The Gambian bone and muscle ageing study: Baseline data from a prospective observational African sub-Saharan study [Front Endocrinol, 8, (2017), (219)] doi: 10.3389/fendo.2017.00219

http://researchonline.lshtm.ac.uk/4647526/1/Corrigendum.pdf

Corrigendum: The Gambian Bone and Muscle Ageing Study: Baseline Data From a Prospective Observational African Sub-Saharan Study.

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Monash University Research Portal

Frontiers - Publisher Connector

LSHTM Research Online

Southampton (e-Prints Soton)