Empirically Based Composite Fracture Prediction Model From the Global Longitudinal Study of Osteoporosis in Postmenopausal Women (GLOW)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Several fracture prediction models that combine fractures at different sites into a composite outcome are in current use. However, to the extent individual fracture sites have differing risk factor profiles, model discrimination is impaired. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to improve model discrimination by developing a 5-year composite fracture prediction model for fracture sites that display similar risk profiles. DESIGN: This was a prospective, observational cohort study. SETTING: The study was conducted at primary care practices in 10 countries. PATIENTS: Women aged 55 years or older participated in the study. INTERVENTION: Self-administered questionnaires collected data on patient characteristics, fracture risk factors, and previous fractures. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The main outcome is time to first clinical fracture of hip, pelvis, upper leg, clavicle, or spine, each of which exhibits a strong association with advanced age. RESULTS: Of four composite fracture models considered, model discrimination (c index) is highest for an age-related fracture model (c index of 0.75, 47 066 women), and lowest for Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) major fracture and a 10-site model (c indices of 0.67 and 0.65). The unadjusted increase in fracture risk for an additional 10 years of age ranges from 80% to 180% for the individual bones in the age-associated model. Five other fracture sites not considered for the age-associated model (upper arm/shoulder, rib, wrist, lower leg, and ankle) have age associations for an additional 10 years of age from a 10% decrease to a 60% increase. CONCLUSIONS: After examining results for 10 different bone fracture sites, advanced age appeared the single best possibility for uniting several different sites, resulting in an empirically based composite fracture risk model.
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 | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".