MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1860872053

Influence of bone densitometry results on the treatment of osteoporosis.

2001· article· en· W1860872053 on OpenAlexaff
N S Fitt, S. L. Mitchell, Ann Cranney, Karen Y. Gulenchyn, Meei‐Li Huang, Peter Tugwell

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and osteoporosis research
Canadian institutionsOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOsteopeniaOsteoporosisDensitometryOdds ratioBone densityBone mineralConfidence intervalPhysical therapyInternal medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Measurement of bone mineral density is widely used to diagnose osteoporosis. The objectives of this study are to determine how bone densitometry affects subsequent treatment of osteopenia and osteoporosis with either hormone replacement therapy or bisphosphonates and to examine clinical factors associated with starting either therapy after bone densitometry. METHODS: We conducted a prospective study involving women over 50 years of age who were referred to a tertiary care hospital for the first time to undergo bone density measurement using dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA). Baseline clinical data were collected through face-to-face interviews before the test. Subsequently, the scans were reviewed and categorized as showing no bone loss, osteopenia or osteoporosis, based on World Health Organization criteria. Three months after DXA, subjects were contacted by telephone to determine their understanding of the test results and any new treatments started or recommended since the scan. RESULTS: Of 383 women recruited at the time of their DXA, 335 (87.5%) completed the 3-month follow-up. Among those reached at follow-up, DXA results showed no bone loss in 119 (35.5%), osteopenia in 137 (40.9%) and osteoporosis in 79 (23.6%). The proportion of subjects with osteoporosis receiving either hormone replacement therapy or bisphosphonate therapy was 15.2% before the test, increasing to 63.3% after the scan. The following factors were independently associated with the initiation of either therapy: actual DXA result showing osteoporosis (odds ratio [OR] 7.2; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.7-30.3), compared with a normal scan; subjects' perception that their scan showed bone loss (osteopenia, or osteoporosis) (OR 13.5; 95% CI 4.0-45.5) or that they were unclear about the results (OR 5.4; 95% CI 1.6-18.8), compared with the perception that the results were normal; and discussion of the DXA results with a physician (OR 5.5; 95% CI 1.9-16.0). INTERPRETATION: The proportion of women with osteoporosis receiving hormone replacement therapy or bisphosphonate therapy increases after diagnosis with densitometry. However, communication by physicians so that patients understand their test results is a critical component in the initiation of therapy after bone densitometry.

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)0.016
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 score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.264 · 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

Citations55
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicBone health and osteoporosis researchFrench-language works237,207