MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1967702056 · doi:10.4021/jem.v3i3.166

Atypical Fracture With Use of Ibandronate and the Role of Bone Scintigraphy on its Early Diagnosis

2013· article· en· W1967702056 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Josivan Gomes Lima, Flávia da Costa Fernandes, Alexandre Barbosa Câmara de Souza, Antonio Correia dos Santos, Bartira Miridan X. C. R. Reboucas, Natália Nóbrega de Lima, Lúcia Helena Coelho Nóbrega, André Gustavo Pires de Sousa, Deciara Jácome Torres Medeiros de Mesquita

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Endocrinology and Metabolism · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBone scintigraphyScintigraphyOsteoporosisRadiologyFemurPhysical examinationNuclear medicineBisphosphonateSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We report a case of a 49 year-old woman with osteoporosis in treatment with sodium ibandronate 150 mg per week for 5 years that presented leg and knees pain, causing her to stop physical activities. There were no alterations on the physical examination or on plain radiography of legs. A bone scintigraphy with technetium-99m (99mTc) methylene diphosphonate showed a high uptake on the medial third of both femurs and 20 days later, while walking on the street, she fractured her right femur on the position listed above. Even though it is uncommon, bisphosphonates can predispose atypical fractures after a long time of use. It is difficult, though, to predict which patients are going to develop it. This case brings up the question whether bone scintigraphy could be useful as an exam to the early diagnose of atypical fractures on patients using bisphosphonates for a long period of time. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.4021/jem166w

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0040.002
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Endocrinology and MetabolismSame topicBone health and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207