MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1973313190 · doi:10.1001/jama.2011.176

RETRACTED: Effect of Nitroglycerin Ointment on Bone Density and Strength in Postmenopausal Women

2011· article· en· W1973313190 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Sophie A. Jamal, Celeste J. Hamilton, Richard Eastell, Steven R. Cummings

Post-publication record

NatureRetraction
ReasonFalsification/Fabrication of Data;Investigation by Company/Institution;Objections by Author(s);
Date1/26/2016 0:00
Flagged by OpenAlex?Yes

Source: Retraction Watch, joined by DOI. OpenAlex records retraction as is_retracted, a boolean over a state space with at least four values, so it cannot express an expression of concern, a correction or a reinstatement; it reports them as false, which reads as “fine”.

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and osteoporosis research
Canadian institutionsWomen's College HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineFemoral neckBone mineralPlaceboBone resorptionBone densityOsteoporosisUrologyBone remodelingN-terminal telopeptideSurgeryInternal medicineOsteocalcinAlkaline phosphatase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CONTEXT: Nitroglycerin stimulates bone formation and inhibits bone resorption, is inexpensive, and is widely available. Its effects on bone density, bone structure, and bone strength are unknown. OBJECTIVES: To determine if nitroglycerin increases lumbar spine bone mineral density (BMD) and to evaluate changes in hip BMD, bone geometry, and density at the radius and tibia, and markers of bone turnover. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A single-center, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized trial conducted in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, for 24 months starting in November 2005 and completed in March 2010, of 243 postmenopausal women with lumbar spine T scores of between 0 and -2.0 who completed a 1-week run-in period taking nitroglycerin ointment. Intervention Nitroglycerin ointment (15 mg/d) or placebo applied at bedtime for 24 months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Areal BMD at the lumbar spine, femoral neck, and total hip. Secondary outcomes included indices of bone geometry and strength at the distal radius and tibia, and biomarkers of bone formation (bone-specific alkaline phosphatase) and bone resorption (urine N -telopeptide). RESULTS: At 2 years, women randomized to the nitroglycerin group had significant increases in areal BMD at the lumbar spine (from 1.05 to 1.14 g/cm(2) vs placebo from 1.06 to 1.08 g/cm(2); percentage change, 6.7%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 5.2%-8.2%; P < .001); total hip (from 0.92 to 0.97 g/cm(2) vs placebo from 0.93 to 0.92 g/cm(2); 6.2%; 95% CI, 5.6%-7.0%; P < .001); and femoral neck (from 0.88 to 0.93 g/cm(2) vs placebo from 0.87 to 0.86 g/cm(2); 7.0%; 95% CI, 5.5%-8.5%; P < .001). At 2 years, nitroglycerin also increased volumetric trabecular BMD (11.9% and 8.5%), cortical thickness (13.9% and 24.6%), periosteal circumference (7.4% and 2.9%), polar section modulus (10.7% and 9.8%), and polar moment of inertia (7.3% and 14.5%) at the radius and tibia, respectively (all P < .001); and increased bone-specific alkaline phosphatase by 34.8% and decreased urine N -telopeptide by 54.0% (P < .001). Incidence of serious adverse events did not differ between nitroglycerin (5 [4.2%]) and placebo (5 [4.3%]) groups. Among those women who continued treatment for 24 months, headaches were reported by 40 (35%) in nitroglycerin and 6 (5.4%) in placebo groups during the first month, decreasing substantially after 12 months. CONCLUSION: Among postmenopausal women, nitroglycerin ointment modestly increased BMD and decreased bone resorption. TRIAL REGISTRATION: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN94484747.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.996
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.273 · 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.

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

Citations70
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMASame topicBone health and osteoporosis researchFrench-language works237,207