Renal safety in patients treated with bisphosphonates for osteoporosis: A review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bisphosphonates are widely used for the treatment of osteoporosis and are generally well tolerated. However, the United States Food and Drug Administration safety reports have highlighted the issue of renal safety in bisphosphonate-treated patients. All bisphosphonates carry labeled "warnings" or a contraindication for use in patients with severe renal impairment (creatinine clearance <30 or <35 mL/min). Data from pivotal trials and their extension studies of bisphosphonates approved for the management of osteoporosis were obtained via PubMed, and were reviewed with support from published articles available on PubMed. Renal safety analyses of pivotal trials of oral alendronate, risedronate, and ibandronate for postmenopausal osteoporosis showed no short-term or long-term effects on renal function. Transient postinfusion increases in serum creatinine have been reported in patients receiving intravenous ibandronate and zoledronic acid; however, studies showed that treatment with these agents did not result in long-term renal function deterioration in clinical trial patients with osteoporosis. All bisphosphonate therapies have "warnings" for use in patients with severe renal impairment. Clinical trial results have shown that even in elderly, frail, osteoporotic patients with renal impairment, intravenous bisphosphonate therapy administration in accordance with the prescribing information did not result in long-term renal function decline. Physicians should follow guidelines for bisphosphonate therapies administration at all times.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".