MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1897626897 · doi:10.1139/cjpp-2014-0419

Vitamin D<sub>3</sub> analogs for the treatment of osteoporosis

2015· review· en· W1897626897 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hiroshi Hagino

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVitamin D Research Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMitsubishi Tanabe Pharma CorporationAsahi Kasei Pharma Corporation
KeywordsAlfacalcidolCalcitriolMedicineInternal medicineOsteoporosisBone remodelingVitamin D and neurologyEndocrinologyBone mineralCholecalciferolOsteopeniaOvariectomized ratBone densityEstrogen

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Vitamin D supplementation is recommended whenever patients are given therapeutic drugs for osteoporosis, to make their calcium (Ca) balance positive. Vitamin D is converted to 25-hydroxyvitamin D in the liver, and then activated to become 1α,25-dihydroxyvitamin D in the kidneys. The active vitamin D acts in the intestine to stimulate Ca absorption and maintain the Ca balance. 2β-(3-Hydroxypropyloxy)-1α,25-dihydroxyvitamin D3 (eldecalcitol) and 2-methylene-19-nor-(20S)-1α,25-dihydroxyvitamin D3 (2MD) are newly developed vitamin D analogs, with a substitution at the 2 position of 1α,25-dihydroxyvitamin D3 (calcitriol). Eldecalcitol and 2MD share common structural and biological characteristics. Both compounds increase serum Ca levels more markedly than calcitriol, increase bone mineral density (BMD), and improve bone strength in ovariectomized (OVX) rats. In a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, 1 year clinical trial, eldecalcitol dose-dependently increased lumbar and hip BMD and suppressed bone turnover markers in patients with osteoporosis. Whereas, 2MD markedly increased the bone turnover markers, but it did not change the BMD of postmenopausal women with osteopenia in a 1 year clinical trial. After a randomized, double-blind, 3 year fracture-prevention trial comparing it with alfacalcidol, eldecalcitol was approved for the treatment of osteoporosis in Japan. On the other hand, the manufacturer discontinued the clinical development of 2MD. In this review, we discuss the similarities and differences between these 2 compounds, and the reasons why different outcomes resulted from their clinical trials.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.005

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.315 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations16
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology→Same topicVitamin D Research Studies→French-language works237,207→