Lumbar Disc Degeneration in Osteoporotic Men: Prevalence and Assessment of the Relation with Presence of Vertebral Fracture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The relationship between osteoarthritis (OA) and osteoporosis (OP) remains controversial. An inverse relationship between spine OA and the presence of prevalent vertebral fractures has been shown in osteoporotic women. Our objective was to assess this relationship in osteoporotic men. METHODS: All the patients had OP based on densitometric data and were aged ≥ 65 years. Spine radiographs were performed according to a standardized procedure. Vertebral fractures were assessed from T4 to L4 by a semiquantitative method. Disc degenerative changes were assessed by the presence and severity of osteophytes and disc narrowing at levels T12-L1 to L5-S1. Logistic regression was used to study the relationship between the presence of vertebral fracture and lumbar disc degeneration. RESULTS: The study included 261 osteoporotic men. The prevalence of vertebral fractures was 26.4% (69/261). At least 1 osteophyte was found in 91.6% (239/261) of patients, and at least 1 disc space narrowing in 63.5% (165/260). The prevalence of at least 1 osteophyte and/or at least 1 disc space narrowing was similar in patients with and those without vertebral fracture. No relationship was found between the presence and/or the severity of osteophytes and disc narrowings and the presence of prevalent vertebral radiographic fractures. CONCLUSION: In osteoporotic men, the prevalence of lumbar spine degeneration is high. There is no relationship between lumbar disc degeneration and the presence of vertebral fracture in osteoporotic men.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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".