MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1971365252 · doi:10.1056/nejmoa044241

Comparison of a Single Infusion of Zoledronic Acid with Risedronate for Paget's Disease

2005· article· en· W1971365252 on OpenAlexaff
Ian R. Reid, Paul D. Miller, Kenneth W. Lyles, William D. Fraser, Jacques P. Brown, Y. Saïdi, Peter Mesenbrink, Guoqin Su, Judy Pak, K. Zelenakas, Monica Luchi, Peter Richardson, David Hosking

Bibliographic record

VenueNew England Journal of Medicine · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and treatments
Canadian institutionsCentre hospitalier universitaire de Québec
FundersNovartis PharmaWellcome TrustBiotechnology and Biological Sciences Research CouncilCreighton UniversityMedical Research CouncilDirectorate for Biological SciencesSanofiAmgenPfizerHealth Research Council of New ZealandEli Lilly and Company
KeywordsZoledronic acidMedicineBisphosphonateDiseaseBone Density Conservation AgentsPaget DiseaseEtidronic acidDiphosphonatesBone diseaseInternal medicineOsteoporosisBone resorptionBone density

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The advent of bisphosphonates advanced therapy for Paget's disease, but more effective and convenient agents are needed to increase adherence. Zoledronic acid, a bisphosphonate administered as a single intravenous infusion, might meet these needs. METHODS: In two identical, randomized, double-blind, actively controlled trials of 6 months' duration, we compared one 15-minute infusion of 5 mg of zoledronic acid with 60 days of oral risedronate (30 mg per day). The primary efficacy end point was the rate of therapeutic response at six months, defined as a normalization of alkaline phosphatase levels or a reduction of at least 75 percent in the total alkaline phosphatase excess. The results of the studies were pooled. RESULTS: At six months, 96.0 percent of patients receiving zoledronic acid had a therapeutic response (169 of 176), as compared with 74.3 percent of patients receiving risedronate (127 of 171, P<0.001). Alkaline phosphatase levels normalized in 88.6 percent of patients in the zoledronic acid group and 57.9 percent of patients in the risedronate group (P<0.001). Zoledronic acid was associated with a shorter median time to a first therapeutic response (64 vs. 89 days, P<0.001). Higher response rates in the zoledronic acid group were consistent across all demographic, disease-severity, and treatment-history subgroups and with changes in other bone-turnover markers. The physical-component summary score of the Medical Outcomes Study 36-item Short-Form General Health Survey, a measure of the quality of life, increased significantly from baseline at both three and six months in the zoledronic acid group and differed significantly from those in the risedronate group at three months. Pain scores improved in both groups. During post-trial follow-up (median, 190 days), 21 of 82 patients in the risedronate group had a loss of therapeutic response, as compared with 1 of 113 patients in the zoledronic acid group (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: A single infusion of zoledronic acid produces more rapid, more complete, and more sustained responses in Paget's disease than does daily treatment with risedronate.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.309 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations434
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew England Journal of MedicineSame topicBone health and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207