Pronounced Risk of Fractures among Elderly Men Affected by Granulomatosis with Polyangiitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: It is unknown whether patients affected by granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA) are at increased risk of fractures, and whether the fracture risk in GPA varies with age and sex. The aim of the present study was to compare the fracture risk among patients with GPA with that among age- and sex-matched population controls. METHODS: We established a monocentric cohort of patients treated for GPA at a Danish tertiary care center from 1995 to 2010 (n = 159) and a register-derived GPA cohort identified from the Danish National Hospital Register (n = 402). Each patient was matched with 7 population controls. The occurrence of fractures among patients was compared with that among controls by calculation of incidence rate ratios (IRR). RESULTS: In the monocentric cohort, an increased fracture risk was observed among men aged ≥ 55 years at the time of first hospitalization for GPA (IRR 3.5, 95% CI 1.6-7.6), but not among men < 55 years (IRR 0.3, 95% CI 0.04-2.1) or women (IRR women ≥ 55 yrs: 1.0, 95% CI 0.4-2.7 and IRR for women < 55 yrs: 0.7, 95% CI 0.2-2.4). In the register-derived cohort, an increased fracture risk was also observed among men aged ≥ 55 years at study baseline (IRR 2.0, 95% CI 1.2-3.5), whereas the incidence rate of fractures was not significantly increased among younger men or women (IRR for men < 55 yrs: 1.0, 95% CI 0.4-2.3; IRR for women ≥ 55 yrs: 0.9, 95% CI 0.5-1.5; IRR for women < 55 yrs: 1.6, 95% CI 0.7-3.6). CONCLUSION: Elderly male patients with GPA have a pronounced risk of developing fractures. This finding is of relevance for the clinical management of patients with GPA.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".