MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1775885739 · doi:10.1002/jbmr.2194

Effects of Odanacatib on the Radius and Tibia of Postmenopausal Women: Improvements in Bone Geometry, Microarchitecture, and Estimated Bone Strength

2014· article· en· W1775885739 on OpenAlexaff
Angela M. Cheung, Sharmila Majumdar, Kim Brixen, Roland Chapurlat, Thomas Fuerst, Klaus Engelke, Bernard J. Dardzinski, Antonio Cabal, Nadia Verbruggen, Shabana Ather, Elizabeth Rosenberg, Anne E. de Papp

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Bone and Mineral Research · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and osteoporosis research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersSynarc
KeywordsQuantitative computed tomographyMedicineOsteoporosisTibiaBone mineralCortical boneCathepsin KPlaceboBone densityUrologyInternal medicineAnatomyPathologyOsteoclast

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The cathepsin K inhibitor odanacatib (ODN), currently in phase 3 development for postmenopausal osteoporosis, has a novel mechanism of action that reduces bone resorption while maintaining bone formation. In phase 2 studies, odanacatib increased areal bone mineral density (aBMD) at the lumbar spine and total hip progressively over 5 years. To determine the effects of ODN on cortical and trabecular bone and estimate changes in bone strength, we conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, using both quantitative computed tomography (QCT) and high-resolution peripheral (HR-p)QCT. In previously published results, odanacatib was superior to placebo with respect to increases in trabecular volumetric BMD (vBMD) and estimated compressive strength at the spine, and integral and trabecular vBMD and estimated strength at the hip. Here, we report the results of HR-pQCT assessment. A total of 214 postmenopausal women (mean age 64.0 ± 6.8 years and baseline lumbar spine T-score -1.81 ± 0.83) were randomized to oral ODN 50 mg or placebo, weekly for 2 years. With ODN, significant increases from baseline in total vBMD occurred at the distal radius and tibia. Treatment differences from placebo were also significant (3.84% and 2.63% for radius and tibia, respectively). At both sites, significant differences from placebo were also found in trabecular vBMD, cortical vBMD, cortical thickness, cortical area, and strength (failure load) estimated using finite element analysis of HR-pQCT scans (treatment differences at radius and tibia = 2.64% and 2.66%). At the distal radius, odanacatib significantly improved trabecular thickness and bone volume/total volume (BV/TV) versus placebo. At a more proximal radial site, odanacatib attenuated the increase in cortical porosity found with placebo (treatment difference = -7.7%, p = 0.066). At the distal tibia, odanacatib significantly improved trabecular number, separation, and BV/TV versus placebo. Safety and tolerability were similar between treatment groups. In conclusion, odanacatib increased cortical and trabecular density, cortical thickness, aspects of trabecular microarchitecture, and estimated strength at the distal radius and distal tibia compared with placebo.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.320 · 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

Citations69
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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