Proportion of osteoporotic post-menopausal women at increased risk for upper GI adverse events associated with bisphosphonate therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background- The bisphosphonate alendronate has been associated with higher rates of adverse oesophageal effects when used in the community setting compared to what was observed in the clinical trials. Patients with a history of gastroesophageal problems or who are concurrently using an NSAID therapy may be at increased risk for the gastroesophageal problems associated with alendronate use. This study assesses the proportion of post-menopausal women in the community with osteoporosis that are at increased risk for gastroesophageal adverse effects associated with alendronate.Methods- The administrative database for the Quebec government drug benefit program was used to identify a cohort of 5400 post menopausal women aged 65 years or older who were using the bisphosphonate etidronate for the treatment of osteoporosis. Patients were evaluated for the presence of either risk factor, chronic GI drug therapy use (a marker for prior gastroesophageal problems) or chronic NSAID use.Findings- 31% of women taking etidronate were also chronically using GI drug therapies and 50% were using NSAIDs; 18% of the women were using all three drugs.Interpretation- Many osteoporosis patients in the community setting who are candidates for bisphosphonate therapy might be considered at increased risk for alendronate's gastroesophageal adverse effects. This may account for differences in pre-marketing and postmarketing event rates. Copyright (c) 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".