Gender differences in CF phenotype associated with low bone mineral density

Adolescents and adults with CF have lower bone mineral density (BMD) than normal, but its relationship with phenotype is not well understood. Point FEV1% predicted (FEV) and rate of change of FEV are biased estimates of disease severity, because progressively older subjects represent a selected survivor population, with females at greater risk of death than males. To investigate the relationship between BMD and phenotype we used an index (predicted age at death) derived from Bayesian estimates of slope and intercept of FEV, age at last measurement and survival status. Predictive equations for the index were derived from 97 subjects (78 survivors) from the RCH CF clinic, and applied to a group of 102 comparable subjects who had BMD measured, classified as having‘mild’ ()75th), ‘moderate’ (25– 75th), or ‘severe’ (-25th centile) phenotype. Total body (TB) and lumbar spine (LS) BMD z-scores (Z) were compared, adjustingfor gender effects, using 2-way ANOVA. Annual mean change in FEV segregated, as expected, according to phenotype, ‘severe’ (ns25), ‘moderate’ (ns51) and ‘mild’ (ns25) y3.01(y3.73 to y2.30)%, y0.85(y1.36 to y0.35)%, 2.70(1.92 to 3.46)%, respectively, with no gender difference. LS and TB BMDZ were different in each phenotype (P-s 0.002), LS BMDZ for ‘severe’, ‘moderate’ and ‘mild’ y1.63(CI: y2.07 to y 1.19), y0.86(CI: y1.17 to y0.55), y0.06(CI: y0.54 to 0.41). Males had lower LS BMDZ than females overall (y1.22 (CI: y1.54 to y0.91) vs. y0.48(CI: y 0.84 to y0.12) Ps0.002). In the ‘severe’ group, males had lower TB BMDZ and LS BMDZ (PF0.002). Low BMD is associated with ‘moderate’ and ‘severe’ phenotypes, with relative preservation in females in the ‘severe’ group. Female biology (reproductive fitness) might promote resistance to bone resorption at a critical level of BMD loss.

Performing race, culture, and gender in an Indigenous Australian women's music and dance classroom

One perpetual concern among Indigenous Australian peoples is authenticity of voice. Who has the right to speak for, and to make representations about, the knowledges and cultures of Indigenous Australian peoples? Whose voice is more authentic, and what happens to these ways of knowing when they make the journey into mainstream Western academic classrooms? In this paper, I examine these questions within the politics of “doing” Indigenous Australian studies by focusing on my own experiences as a lecturer in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies Unit at the University of Queensland. My findings suggest that representation is a matter of problematizing positionality and, from a pedagogical standpoint, being aware of, and willing to address, the ways in which power, authority, and voice are performed and negotiated as teachers and learners of Indigenous Australian studies.