MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1482048385 · doi:10.1002/jbmr.2589

Degree of Trauma Differs for Major Osteoporotic Fracture Events in Older Men Versus Older Women

2015· article· en· W1482048385 on OpenAlexaff
Kristine E. Ensrud, Terri Blackwell, Peggy M. Cawthon, Douglas C. Bauer, Howard A Fink, John T. Schousboe, Dennis M. Black, Eric Orwoll, Deborah M. Kado, Jane A. Cauley, Dawn C. Mackey

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Bone and Mineral Research · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and osteoporosis research
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesNational Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin DiseasesNational Institute on Aging
KeywordsDegree (music)MedicineOsteoporotic fractureGerontologyOlder peopleFracture (geology)DemographyOsteoporosisInternal medicineSociologyGeologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To examine the degree of trauma in major osteoporotic fractures (MOF) in men versus women, we used data from 15,698 adults aged ≥65 years enrolled in the Osteoporotic Fractures in Men (MrOS) study (5994 men) and the Study of Osteoporotic Fractures (SOF) (9704 women). Participants were contacted tri-annually to ascertain incident fractures, which were confirmed by radiographic reports and coded according to degree of self-reported trauma. Trauma was classified as low (fall from ≤ standing height; fall on stairs, steps, or curb; minimal trauma other than fall [coughing, turning over]); moderate (collisions with objects during normal activity without associated fall); or high (fall from > standing height; severe trauma [motor vehicle accident, assault]). MOF included hip, clinical vertebral, wrist, and humerus fractures. Mean fracture follow-up was 9.1 years in SOF and 8.7 years in MrOS. A total of 14.6% of the MOF in men versus 6.3% of the MOF in women were classified as high trauma (p < 0.001); men versus women more often experienced fractures resulting from severe trauma as well as from fall > standing height. High-trauma fractures were more significantly common in men versus women at the hip (p = 0.002) and wrist (p < 0.001) but not at the spine or humerus. Among participants with MOF, the odds ratio of a fracture related to high-trauma fracture among men versus women was 3.12 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.70-5.71) after adjustment for traditional risk factors. Findings were similar in analyses limited to participants with hip fractures (odds ratio [OR] = 3.34, 95% CI 1.04-10.67) and those with wrist fracture (OR = 5.68, 95% CI 2.03-15.85). Among community-dwelling older adults, MOF are more likely to be related to high trauma in men than in women. These findings are not explained by sex differences in conventional risk factors and may reflect a greater propensity among men to engage in risky behavior. © 2015 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.126
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.295 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations29
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Bone and Mineral ResearchSame topicBone health and osteoporosis researchFrench-language works237,207