MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1979347479 · doi:10.1002/jbmr.123

Independent clinical validation of a Canadian FRAX tool: Fracture prediction and model calibration

2010· article· en· W1979347479 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Bone and Mineral Research · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and osteoporosis research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanUniversity of Manitoba
FundersAmgen Canada
KeywordsFRAXMedicineFemoral neckHip fractureConfidence intervalBone mineralReceiver operating characteristicBone densityCohortOsteoporosisDemographyDentistryInternal medicinePhysical therapyOsteoporotic fracture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A FRAX model for Canada was constructed for prediction of osteoporotic and hip fracture risk using national hip fracture data with and without the use of femoral neck bone mineral density (BMD). Performance of this system was assessed independently in a large clinical cohort of 36,730 women and 2873 men from the Manitoba Bone Density Program database that tracks all clinical dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) test results for the Province of Manitoba, Canada. Linkage with other provincial health databases allowed for the direct comparison of fracture risk estimates from the Canadian FRAX model with observed fracture rates to 10 years (549 individuals with incident hip fractures and 2543 with incident osteoporotic fractures). The 10-year Kaplan-Meier estimate for hip fractures in women was 2.7% [95% confidence interval (CI) 2.1-3.4%] with a predicted value of 2.8% for FRAX with BMD, and in men the observed risk was 3.5% (95% CI 0.8-6.2%) with predicted value of 2.9%. The 10-year estimate of osteoporotic fracture risk for all women was 12.0% (95% CI 10.8-13.4%) with a predicted value of 11.1% for FRAX with BMD, and in men, the observed risk was 10.7% (95% CI 6.6-14.9%) with a predicted value of 8.4%. Discrepancies were observed within some subgroups but generally were small. Fracture discrimination based on receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was comparable with published meta-analyses with area under the curve for osteoporotic fracture prediction of 0.694 (95% CI 0.684-0.705) for FRAX with BMD and for hip fractures 0.830 (95% CI 0.815-0.846), both of which were better than FRAX without BMD or BMD alone. Individual risk factors considered by FRAX made significant independent contributions to fracture prediction in one or more of the models. In conclusion, a Canadian FRAX tool calibrated on national hip fracture data generates fracture risk predictions that generally are consistent with observed fracture rates across a wide range of risk categories.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.363
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.095
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.329 · 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