Sign up to receive Decoded, a new monthly digest with product updates, feature release info, continuing education opportunities, and more.

I received a bone density mineralization number and am trying to make sense of the numbers. The first test showed bone mineral density of 56.1 mg/cc. The second test showed 1.151 g/cm squared. How do I equate the two?

It's just a simple division of 10 (as there are 10 layers of suared centimtres per cubic centimtre). But then you probably knew that any way!

also, 1.151g/cm squared is just what it says - 1.151 grams per centimetre squared (or 1.151g/cm^2). Converting this to cubic centimtres is just multiplying it by 10 ie, 11.51g/cc (or 11.51g/cm^3).

and that cannot in general be done with any reasonable meaning.

as was pointed out cc is volume and cm^2 is surface.

Yeah.... and cm^2 x cm is cm^3

In other words... an AREA converted to a VOLUME

So, what's the problem?

I don't know how you do YOUR geometry but back in my junior school days I learned L x W is Area whereas, L x W x H is Volume.

It's not rocket-science stuff....

BTW, a box whose base has an area of 1m^2 and a height of 1m, has a volume of 1m^3

There you go: AREA x height = VOLUME

Simple!!!...

Why is everyone picking on me?

Although that's correct, it has nothing to do with the question. E.g., there is no value that can be assigned to <height> in the measurement "1.151 g/cm squared".

Tom

I'm guessing that one measure is physical (a true density), while the other is a medical test result showing "some measure of mineral present" over "some unit of surface" (e.g. on an X-ray), and that the two are correlated (the second is used to estimate the first in a non-invasive manner).

(°v°)

(°v°)

Using Harfang's link, I find that BMD is reported in g/cm3. However, the test result I have says g/cm2. So I am assuming a typo on their part. Assuming that we are comparing 56.1 mg/cc to 1.151 g/cm3, how do we make that comparison (conversion)?

Assuming a typo in a medical report is very bad practice. I can think of no typo which will make the conversion possible. Here you can get all kinds of quesses. The only definitive answer must come from the people who wrote the report.

--

There is NO way you can convert 56.1 mg/cc to 1.151 g/cm3 by unit conversion alone

All Courses

From novice to tech pro — start learning today.

I do not read the page like that at all. On the contrary, it explains at length that BMD uses area and not volume, and that this makes it difficult to correlate it to true densities.

Apparently, there is no conversion table between the numbers, unless the first number is a BMAD, attempting to estimate true density.

(°v°)