Böcker's cited compartment literature (refs 12, 22, 23) does support a genuine bed-rest-cortical / spaceflight-trabecular dissociation, not simply 'trabecular bone loses faster everywhere'

space-medicineaerospace-physiologybone-densitytrabecular-corticalbed-rest-analogsynthesisverification

Böcker et al. 2026's introduction (p. 1), surveying prior literature it calls "contrary results regarding the losses of the specific bone tissues," asserts that "[b]one losses assessed by pQCT in response to experimental bed rest... were more pronounced in cortical bone," while "results of high-resolution pQCT as well as QCT obtained a greater loss of trabecular bone after spaceflight." Reading the three cited sources directly confirms the dissociation at the level those sources actually establish:

• Bed rest (ref 22, full text): tibial epiphyseal bone loss almost exclusively cortical, trabecular compartment essentially untouched (claim-rittweger-2010-bed-rest-tibial-loss-almost-entirely-cortical).
• Spaceflight (ref 23, abstract): trabecular bone resists a countermeasure that protects cortical bone (claim-sibonga-2019-ared-protects-cortical-not-trabecular-in-spaceflight).
• Spaceflight (ref 12, abstract): trabecular bone fails to recover after landing while cortical structure recovers (claim-vico-2017-post-spaceflight-cortical-recovers-trabecular-does-not).

All three point the same direction, so the dissociation is real: this is not the naïve "trabecular bone turns over faster, so it loses faster everywhere" rule, which would make bed rest and orbit agree. This discharges most of the [unverified-mechanism] flag on claim-bocker-tibial-losses-match-stavnichuk-only-at-epiphyseal-sites and answers question-verify-bocker-compartment-cortical-trabecular-disagreement largely in the affirmative. It also sharpens the broader bed-rest-analog thread (claim-bed-rest-under-runs-spaceflight-bone-loss-depends-on-readout, claim-head-down-bed-rest-is-the-standard-ground-analog-for-spaceflight-bone-loss): bed rest and spaceflight share loss direction but differ in which compartment carries it — a dissociation, not a clean convergence.

Two caveats travel with the claim. First, "more affected" means three different things across the sources — mass loss (Rittweger), countermeasure resistance (Sibonga), and failure to recover (Vico) — so the dissociation is directional, not a like-for-like magnitude match. Second, only ref 22 was read in full text; the spaceflight side rests on verbatim abstracts, so the magnitude comparison is not confirmed at full-text resolution.