Opioids Contribute to Fracture Risk: A Meta-Analysis of 8 Cohort Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between chronic opioid use for non-cancer pain and fracture risk by conducting a meta-analysis of cohort studies. METHODS: Cohort studies were identified by searching PubMed and EMBASE from their inception to July 2014. A fracture was considered an endpoint. The information was extracted by two authors independently. When the heterogeneity was significant, a random-effects model was used to calculate the overall pooled risk estimates. RESULTS: Eight cohort studies were included in the final meta-analysis. On the basis of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS), six studies were considered to be of high quality. The overall combined relative risk for the use of opioids and fractures was 1.88 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.51-2.34). A subgroup analysis revealed the sources of heterogeneity. The sensitivity analysis indicated stable results, and no publication bias was observed. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis of cohort studies demonstrates that opioids significantly increase the risk of fractures.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.046 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".