MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1972328688 · doi:10.1002/jbmr.1759

Type 2 diabetes and bone

2012· review· en· W1972328688 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Bone and Mineral Research · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and osteoporosis research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFRAXMedicineBone mineralOsteoporosisType 2 diabetesDiabetes mellitusDual-energy X-ray absorptiometryGerontologyObesityInternal medicineEndocrinologyOsteoporotic fracture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is a growing body of research showing that diabetes is an independent risk factor for fracture. Type 2 diabetes (T2D), which predominates in older individuals and is increasing globally as a consequence of the obesity epidemic, is associated with normal or even increased dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA)-derived areal bone mineral density (BMD). Therefore, the paradoxical increase in fracture risk has led to the hypothesis that there are diabetes-associated alterations in material and structural properties. An overly glycated collagen matrix, confounded by a low turnover state, in the setting of subtle cortical abnormalities, may lead to compromised biomechanical competence. In current clinical practice, because BMD is central to fracture prediction, a consequence of this paradox is a lack of suitable methods, including FRAX, to predict fracture risk in older adults with T2D. The option of adding diabetes to the FRAX algorithm is appealing but requires additional data from large population-based cohorts. The need for improved methods for identification of fracture in older adults with T2D is an important priority for osteoporosis research.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.971
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.215
GPT teacher head0.484
Teacher spread0.269 · 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