Had a scan done this morning. According to the chart in their web app (which uses their own reference data set), my bone density is in the lower 15%. But according to the PDF report (which uses the public NHANES data set), I'm in the upper 50%...
Interesting. I asked them if their dataset might be biased by self-selection—exceptionally healthy people are more interested in paying out of pocket—but they claim not. Still, I guess now it's at least n=2 that feel the bone density numbers are low.
I also confirmed that they use the same scanners as were used for the NHANES data (GE Lunar), but I'm in no position to question their data set right now, considering that my right radius is broken 😬
Great review! I’m interested to learn more about how those percentages are calculated: do they compare you to all users, age- and gender-matched? Height??
Also curious if you make changes and plan to retest?
Had a scan done this morning. According to the chart in their web app (which uses their own reference data set), my bone density is in the lower 15%. But according to the PDF report (which uses the public NHANES data set), I'm in the upper 50%...
Interesting. I asked them if their dataset might be biased by self-selection—exceptionally healthy people are more interested in paying out of pocket—but they claim not. Still, I guess now it's at least n=2 that feel the bone density numbers are low.
I also confirmed that they use the same scanners as were used for the NHANES data (GE Lunar), but I'm in no position to question their data set right now, considering that my right radius is broken 😬
Ouch!
Love reading these Richard - thanks again for sharing!
Likewise, I'm enjoying your CGM updates on X. https://www.personalscience.com/p/personal-science-week-230406-cgms
Great review! I’m interested to learn more about how those percentages are calculated: do they compare you to all users, age- and gender-matched? Height??
Also curious if you make changes and plan to retest?
Yes, I'll have more to say soon.