69
PTABLE 26.
» Times (Tanve 23 Less THE VALUE IN TABLE 23
FoR 0.2 Year) + Tap ie 24
; would be,
A, yr!
rest’ of the,
T,yr
0.693
bone ages.
r member;
ose of the
I
2
5
10
20
50
100
lantitativ
ugh young.
ite that j
1e homeo.
1.17
1.03
0.99
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.231
0.099
0.046
:
0.020 0.0092
I
|
1.06 | 4.03
1.01
1.01
1.00
0.78 0.691: 0.652 , 0.631 0.623
0.638 0.478 0.400 0.358 0.340
0.612 0.414 0.309 0.249 0.223
0.608 0.395 0.268 0.192 0.155
0.608 0.391 0.253 0.160 0.112
0.608 0.391 0.252 0.154 0.099
observed. About 56% of As was augmentation (theo-
retically).
The 51-year-old man with “Ca examined in 1958
has a blood curve consistent with As5,. = 18.6%/vear.
Therefore he ts plotted in Figure 53 at T = 33 years
and a diffuse/uniform label of (2%/year)/(18.6 %/
vear) or 0.107. This corresponds to \ = 12 %/year and
TABLE 27.
Va.LvueEs or PARAMETERS CALCULATED FROM THE
Microscopic MopEe.
A, yt
T, yr
69.3
23.1)
99
46
2.0
0.92
20
100
25.0
29.5!
29.5)
29.5]
32.0
19.0
18.2;
18.0;
31.5:
14.4]
11.8];
11.7)
30.5
12.0]
8.1]
7.6}
30.0
10.8
5.8]
4.6)
30.0
10.3
4.6
3.0
1
5)
20
100
87.0
81.5
81.5
81.5
49.3
36.3
35.5;
35.3}
38.9
21.8
19.2
19.1)
34.0)
15.5
11.5]
11.1)
31.5 30.7
12.3 11.0
7.3]
5.3
6.1) 3.7
1)
5
20
100 ;
40
36
36
36
65
52
51
51
81
66
61
61
90
7
70
68
e.
he human’. the sugmentation rates, but the reduction is only about
ct to inf30°,
in the region of interest.
e volume,
tion ratest
in) Figure 52 gives augmentation rates (Augs) vs.
observed
’ veur).
an of the:. (b) Therefore, it does not include apposition but
resorption”. docs include secondary mineralization.
n rate aff
‘¢) Since new bone is only 75% mineralized, the
mal adult.
ong-term_:
1;
A-Value and Augmentation Rate
of loca \ und T excluding bone younger than 10 weeks (0.2
put 15 ES
é
Augs, %/yr
As, %/yr
Augs/A 5 eo
apposition rate in mass per unit mass per unit time is
oe Xy,
Ld)
ws = Augs + 75% X.
The diffuse component will be understood as the
nentation , tracer uptake in the original bone laid down at adoles-
% original
1
bone left
5
20;
100
‘his aug- g cence. It is therefore bone of age T years and its local
viouslyi augmentation rate 1s Augs = al?
ut wou
Id at ind1.6 eatio
euptakeé
|
Diffuse
Uniform label
_ Local Aug; (adolescent bone)
As
Diffuse/uniform label
'
The curves in Figure 53 showdiffuse/uniform label
at when , versus T and 4, taken from Table 27. Figure 54 shows
fe iF be, wf; versus A and 7 taken from Table 27.
n diffuse *
'¢) For animals injected at the older ages, quite
rate vs.—E
low diffuse/uniform ratios are found, but the fraction
er thané
ntation
2 26.)
of the A-value due to augmentation stays over 50%.
(Figure 33).
The °Ca dog JJ1 (age 10 years) should have a
diffuse
uniform ratio = 0.25. The value 0.167 was
e lowers |
0.61
0.27
0.104)
0.034;
91
96
61
14
—
98
7 |
40
1,
0.77
0.45
0.192)
0.062)
0.88
0.63
0.32
0.108)
90
67
14
0.95
G.79
0.50
0.196}
99
96
83
40
0.98
0.88
0.70
0.323
~“
oO
;
2.0
aD
F coulirmed by the radium cases of Rowland and MarPeshal]” with one exception (case IJ). (See Figure 53.)
‘bi For a given age at injection, the higher the re‘modeling
rate the lower the diffuse/uniform ratio.
she times
Dogs
N
(age
1 year) and P (age 3 months) fit the
mediate §
F prediction very well.
ye more
0.34
0.119)
0.045)
0.015)
o
there ab mio:Teling rate should decrease as the age of the person
‘all aug-t ut the time of tracer intake increases. This trend is
79
3.1
31
|
-—-~ ; 1.0]
—
—
98
94
87
81
X= 0.92% /year |
Augs /As in Percent
nan the,
(unelusion
‘+h wider, fo _
oo
.
sund for!
The ratio diffuse/uniform label for a given re-
|
5
20
100
50
95
88
79
73
50r
23.|
FOF
30
I
2
Let
|
69.3
peril
5
10
!
20
Lo
7
tet
50
100
T (Years after Adolescence - Age of bone at injection)
Fic. 55.—The calculated percentage of the total kinetic Avalue (As) that is due to augmentation (Augs) rather than to
the deposition of activity in newly-forming bone. Figures from
Table 27.