Subgroup Variations in Bone Mineral Density Response to Zoledronic Acid After Hip Fracture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Minimizing post-fracture bone loss is an important aspect of recovery from hip fracture, and determination of factors that affect bone mineral density (BMD) response to treatment after hip fracture may assist in the development of targeted therapeutic interventions. A post hoc analysis of the HORIZON Recurrent Fracture Trial was done to determine the effect of zoledronic acid (ZOL) on total hip (TH) and femoral neck (FN) BMD in subgroups with low-trauma hip fracture. A total of 2127 patients were randomized (1:1) to yearly infusions of ZOL 5 mg (n = 1065) or placebo (n = 1062) within 90 days of operation for low-trauma hip fracture. The 1486 patients with a baseline and at least one post-baseline BMD assessment at TH or FN (ZOL = 745, placebo = 741) were included in the analyses. Percentage change from baseline in TH and FN BMD was assessed at months 12 and 24 and compared across subgroups of hip fracture patients. Percentage change from baseline in TH and FN BMD at months 12 and 24 was greater (p < 0.05) in ZOL-treated patients compared with placebo in most subgroups. Treatment-by-subgroup interactions (p < 0.05) indicated that a greater effect on BMD was observed for TH BMD at month 12 in females, in patients in the lower tertile body mass index at baseline (≤22.6 kg/m(2) ), and in patients with baseline FN BMD T-score of ≤ -2.5; for FN BMD in patients who received ZOL for >6 weeks post-surgery; and for TH and FN BMD in patients with a history of one or more prior fractures. All interactions were limited to the first 12 months after treatment with none observed for the 24-month comparisons. (Clinical trial registration number NCT00046254.)
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".