Efficacy and Safety of Oral Weekly Ibandronate in the Treatment of Postmenopausal Osteoporosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adherence to oral daily bisphosphonate regimens in postmenopausal osteoporosis is currently suboptimal. Less frequent dosing regimens are likely to improve patient adherence and thus, potentially, patient outcomes. A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, noninferiority study was conducted in 235 women (53-80 yr old; time since menopause >/==" BORDER="0"> 3 yr) with postmenopausal osteoporosis [lumbar spine (L1-L4) bone mineral density (BMD) T-score </= -2] to demonstrate the noninferiority of an oral weekly (20 mg) ibandronate regimen compared with an oral daily (2.5 mg) ibandronate regimen. All patients received daily calcium (500 mg) and vitamin D (400 IU). The primary analysis was the relative change in lumbar spine (L1-L4) BMD from baseline after 48 wk in the per- protocol population. Daily and weekly ibandronate significantly increased spinal BMD by 3.47 and 3.53%, respectively, and provided substantial and similar decreases in biochemical markers of bone turnover. In the primary analysis, noninferiority of the weekly regimen to the daily regimen was demonstrated, with the boundary of the one-sided confidence interval, -0.96%, within both the -1.65% prespecified margin and a more stringent margin of -1.10%. These results demonstrate that oral weekly ibandronate provides the same efficacy and safety as oral daily ibandronate in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".