Use of oral bisphosphonates and the risk of aseptic osteonecrosis: a nested case-control study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether use of oral bisphosphonates is associated with an increased risk of aseptic osteonecrosis (AON) among a cohort of elderly cardiovascular patients. METHODS: We conducted a nested case-control study within a previously defined cardiovascular cohort of elderly Quebec patients using linked administrative health databases. Cases were defined as those with the diagnosis of hospitalization secondary to AON at a nonspecified site. For each case, 10 controls were randomly selected and matched to the cases by age, calendar time, and length of followup. The main outcome measure was the risk ratio (RR) of AON among ever-users of oral bisphosphonates compared to that among nonusers. As a quality measure, RR for AON among users of statin and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE-I) compared to nonusers were also calculated. RESULTS: The initial cohort consisted of 87,837 subjects. In the primary analysis, the adjusted RR for AON among bisphosphonate users was 2.87 (95% CI 1.71-5.05). The adjusted RR for alendronate, etidronate, and risedronate were 2.87 (95% CI 1.46-5.67), 2.43 (95% CI 1.05-5.62), and 3.34 (95% CI 1.04-10.67), respectively. There were no significant differences in RR for AON among current users (most recent drug exposure within 90 days of diagnosis) and past users (drug exposure between 91 and 365 days before diagnosis) of bisphosphonates. The adjusted RR for both statins and ACE-I were 0.79 (95% CI 0.49-1.07) and 1.16 (95% CI 0.79-1.70), respectively. CONCLUSION: In this cohort of elderly cardiovascular patients, an association was observed between oral bisphosphonate use and aseptic osteonecrosis. Further research into this putative association is required.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".