Efficacy and safety of a once-yearly i.v. Infusion of zoledronic acid 5 mg versus a once-weekly 70-mg oral alendronate in the treatment of male osteoporosis: A randomized, multicenter, double-blind, active-controlled study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Zoledronic acid (ZOL) has shown beneficial effects on bone turnover and bone mineral density (BMD) in postmenopausal osteoporosis. This study compared the efficacy and safety of a once-yearly i.v. infusion of ZOL with weekly oral alendronate (ALN) in men with osteoporosis. In this multicenter, double-blind, active-controlled, parallel-group study, participants (n = 302) were randomized to receive either once-yearly ZOL 5 mg i.v. or weekly oral ALN 70 mg for 24 months. Changes in BMD and bone marker levels were assessed. ZOL increased BMD at the lumbar spine, total hip, femoral neck, and trochanter and was not inferior to ALN at 24 months [least squares mean estimates of the percentage increases in lumbar spine BMD of 6.1% and 6.2%; difference approximately 0.13; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.12-0.85 in the ZOL and ALN groups, respectively]. At month 12, the median change from baseline of markers for bone resorption [serum β-C-terminal telopeptide of type I collagen (β-CTx) and urine N-terminal telopeptide of type I collagen (NTx)] and formation [serum N-terminal propeptide of type I collagen (P1NP) and serum bone-specific alkaline phosphatase (BSAP)] were comparable between ZOL and ALN groups. Most men preferred i.v. ZOL over oral ALN. The incidence of adverse events and serious adverse events was similar in the treatment groups. It is concluded that a once-yearly i.v. infusion of ZOL 5 mg increased bone density and decreased bone turnover markers similarly to once-weekly oral ALN 70 mg in men with low bone density.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".