Talk:Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry

message: This statement made me chuckle...
Can plagiarism be any more blatant? Wikipedia doesn't even have an appendix! --~~MusicalConnoisseur~~  Got Classical? 06:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely it's not considered the proper thing to cite your own work as a source for claims you are making!  Wikipedia:Verifiability says: "most self-published sources, may only be used as sources about themselves".  Of course, the crucial word "most" is included.  Nevertheless, should such information here be tagged as self-published?  leevclarke (talk) 22:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  I laughed out loud! 

message: The recommendations in this article are quite wtf - it is unclear as to who is making these suggestions or why (ie on what evidence). Are these the recommendations of RS30 (the person who appears to have written the article based on their personal 'considerably larger report' on the subject)? If so they should be exchanged for recommendations from a health body e.g. National osteoporosis association or something similar, based on legitimate evidence.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.204.148 (talk) 15:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recommendations 

message: Does wtf mean "worse than failure"? If this is so, it should have been written in brackets to make it clearer. Actually, the part I submitted is only in the "paediatrics" section and there are 9 references linking the claims back to their sources. 
—Preceding unsigned comment added by RS30 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hello! RS30 here 

message: The abbreviation was changed from DEXA to DXA by an IP editor in December 2005. Google seems to agree that DXA is now the more common of the two. But why? On what authority? DEXA seems the more logical. Did some governing body or professional association decide on this change? Qwfp (talk) 12:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "DXA, previously DEXA" 

message: The journal review article "Assessment methods in human body composition" suggests that the "uses" section here is not entirely accurate when it calls DXA unreliable for measuring fat. Rather, this section should explain when DXA's results are better than the alternatives and when they are not.
--74.177.70.107 (talk) 05:33, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Measuring body composition 

message: From the definition: ". Two X-ray beams with differing energy levels are aimed at the patient's bones. When soft tissue absorption is subtracted out, the BMD can be determined from the absorption of each beam by bone."
OK, ideally we would have
- image from beam 1.
- image from beam 2.
- difference between them.
one of the previous discussers claimed to own a machine such as this. Can he/she provide these images?
Old_Wombat (talk) 09:42, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any chance of a worked example? 

message: I think the definitions of the T-score and Z-score should be defined within the article, or at least linked to a new page with specific definitions. The current z-score link within the scoring section takes the user to the standard score page for general statistics.
In this instance the t-score is defined as "A T-SCORE is the number of standard deviations the bone mineral density measurement is above or below the YOUNG-NORMAL MEAN bone mineral density." and a z-score is defined as "A Z-SCORE is the number of standard deviations the bone mineral density measurement is above or below the AGE-MATCHED MEAN bone mineral density." http://depts.washington.edu/osteoed/questions.php?caseID=3&qID=14&qNum=5&a=B.
Regarr (talk) 21:56, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  T-score and Z-score definitions 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120624075453/http://choosingwisely.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/5things_12_factsheet_Amer_Acad_Fam_Phys.pdf to http://choosingwisely.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/5things_12_factsheet_Amer_Acad_Fam_Phys.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120509172203/http://www.iscd.org:80/Visitors/positions/OfficialPositionsText.cfm to http://www.iscd.org/visitors/positions/OfficialPositionsText.cfm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:29, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://archive.is/20120710100242/http://intjdc.org/intjdc/article/view/92 to http://intjdc.org/intjdc/article/view/92
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.iscd.org/visitors/positions/OfficialPositionsText.cfm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified