MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1585549361

Instant vertebral assessment (IVA) in combination with bone densitometry (BDM): A new standard in the diagnosis of osteoporosis?

2007· article· en· W1585549361 on OpenAlexaff
Pieter L. Jager, Annemiek Stiekema, S. Jonkman, Wendy Koolhaas, Bruce H. R. Wolffenbuttel, Riemer H. J. A. Slart, Collin Webber, Karen Y. Gulenchyn

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and osteoporosis research
Canadian institutionsHamilton Health Sciences
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOsteoporosisDensitometryCohortBone densityRadiographyCohort studySurgeryRadiologyDentistryNuclear medicineInternal medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

432 Objectives: Prevalent vertebral fractures constitute a significant risk factor for future fractures, which is independent of the bone density. New developments in DEXA machines allow visual and software-based detection of vertebral fractures. We aimed to determine the added value of IVA performed immediately after BDM. Methods: All patients referred to our university medical center department for BDM also underwent IVA om a Hologic Discovery A bone densitometer. Studies were analyzed by 3 experienced operators and physicians. The frequency of vertebral fractures was determined in the the entire cohort and in various subgroups. Referring physicians were asked for their opinion on the added value of IVA using a short questionaire. Results: 958 patients were included (64% females, 52% postmenopausal), 29% were assessed because of primary osteoporosis, 71% for secondary osteoporosis. 30% used corticosteroids. In 2% IVA was not possible due to extreme adipositas or deformities. In 71% T4 and in 86% T5 was the upper vertebral level that could be assessed. The main finding in this cohort was a prevalence of vertebral fractures of 26%. In 68% of these patients this fracture was unknown. We found a mean of 1.8 vertebral fractures per patient. Even after excluding mild fractures (=20-25% heightloss) still 17% of the patients had moderate (>25%) or severe (>40% heightloss) vertebral fractures. In the 27% with normal bone density the vertebral fracture prevalence was still 18%, in the 43% with ostopenia 23%, and in the 29% with osteoporisis 36%. In primary osteoporosis the vertebral fracture prevalence was 45%, in secondary osteoporosis 33%. Referring physicians reported that in 58% IVA results increased their understanding, and in 27% had an impact on treatment. Conclusions: IVA added to BMD is a very convenient and patient friendly diagnostic tool with a high diagnostic yield as the method detected vertebral fractures in 1 out of 4 patients. In 2/3 of these cases these fractures were unknown. In 18% of patients with normal bone density vertebral fractures were detected.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.332 · 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

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBone health and osteoporosis research→French-language works237,207→