Back to all available

The role of biochemical and immunological markers in postmenopausal osteoporosis

geriatrics
gynecology-and-obstetrics
immunology
public-health
womens-health

Abstract

Background: Postmenopausal estrogen deficiency raises the risk of osteoporosis (OP), cardiovascular disease (CVD), and dyslipidaemia. Low bone mineral density (BMD) key factor in OP, with strong connections between OP and CVD. Biomarkers such as the Atherogenic Index of Plasma (AIP) and Triglyceride-Glucose (TyG) Index are linked to CVD and may be related to OP. Inflammatory markers, including NLR, PLR, MLR, and NMR, along with ratios like lymphocyte/HDL-C, monocyte/HDL-C, and granulocyte/HDL-C, have been suggested as potential diagnostic tools for OP. This study aimed to evaluate their diagnostic value in postmenopausal osteoporosis.

Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed on 387 postmenopausal women who underwent bone densitometry between 2021 and 2025. Data on BMI, T-scores, age, menopause duration, and relevant laboratory parameters were collected. Inflammatory and biochemical indices were calculated using established formulas.

Results: Significant differences were identified in age, menopause duration, height, and T-scores across BMD groups (p<0.01). Among the biomarkers, only the monocyte/HDL-C ratio was significantly lower in the OP group (p<0.05). ROC analysis indicated limited predictive value for this ratio (AUC: 0.608), while the others were non-significant (AUC < 0.6).

Conclusion: These markers alone do not suffice for diagnosing OP but can aid in identifying high-risk individuals within multifactorial models.

Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].