Intravenous Zoledronic Acid in Postmenopausal Women with Low Bone Mineral Density
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Bisphosphonates are effective agents for the management of osteoporosis. Their low bioavailability and low potency necessitate frequent administration on an empty stomach, which may reduce compliance. Gastrointestinal intolerance limits maximal dosing. Although intermittent intravenous treatments have been used, the optimal doses and dosing interval have not been systematically explored. METHODS: We studied the effects of five regimens of zoledronic acid, the most potent bisphosphonate, on bone turnover and density in 351 postmenopausal women with low bone mineral density in a one-year, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Women received placebo or intravenous zoledronic acid in doses of 0.25 mg, 0.5 mg, or 1 mg at three-month intervals. In addition, one group received a total annual dose of 4 mg as a single dose, and another received two doses of 2 mg each, six months apart. Lumbar-spine bone mineral density was the primary end point. RESULTS: There were similar increases in bone mineral density in all the zoledronic acid groups to values for the spine that were 4.3 to 5.1 percent higher than those in the placebo group (P<0.001) and values for the femoral neck that were 3.1 to 3.5 percent higher than those in the placebo group (P<0.001). Biochemical markers of bone resorption were significantly suppressed throughout the study in all zoledronic acid groups. Myalgia and pyrexia occurred more commonly in the zoledronic acid groups, but treatment-related dropout rates were similar to that in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: Zoledronic acid infusions given at intervals of up to one year produce effects on bone turnover and bone density as great as those achieved with daily oral dosing with bisphosphonates with proven efficacy against fractures, suggesting that an annual infusion of zoledronic acid might be an effective treatment for 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".