MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1983391342 · doi:10.1359/jbmr.040134

A Meta-Analysis of Prior Corticosteroid Use and Fracture Risk

2004· review· en· W1983391342 on OpenAlexaff
John А. Kanis, Helena Johansson, Anders Odén, Olof Johnell, Chris De Laet, L. Joseph Melton, Alan Tenenhouse, J. Reeve, Alan J. Silman, Huibert A. P. Pols, John A. Eisman, Eugène McCloskey, Dan Mellström

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Bone and Mineral Research · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and osteoporosis research
Canadian institutionsProcter & Gamble (Canada)Montreal General Hospital
FundersInternational Osteoporosis FoundationEli Lilly and Company
KeywordsMedicineOsteoporosisHip fracturePoisson regressionRisk factorCohort studyRelative riskEpidemiologyProspective cohort studyInternal medicineSurgeryConfidence intervalPopulationEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

UNLABELLED: The relationship between use of corticosteroids and fracture risk was estimated in a meta-analysis of data from seven cohort studies of approximately 42,000 men and women. Current and past use of corticosteroids was an important predictor of fracture risk that was independent of prior fracture and BMD. INTRODUCTION: The aims of this study were to validate that corticosteroid use is a significant risk factor for fracture in an international setting and to explore the effects of age and sex on this risk. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We studied 42,500 men and women from seven prospectively studied cohorts followed for 176,000 patient-years. The cohorts comprised the EPOS/EVOS study, CaMos, the Rotterdam Study, Dubbo Osteoporosis Epidemiology Study (DOES), and prospective cohorts at Sheffield, Rochester, and Gothenburg. The effect of ever use of corticosteroids, BMD, age, and sex on all fracture, osteoporotic fracture, and hip fracture risk alone was examined using Poisson regression in each cohort and for each sex. The results of the different studies were merged from the weighted beta coefficients. RESULTS: Previous corticosteroid use was associated with a significantly increased risk of any fracture, osteoporotic fracture, and hip fracture when adjusted for BMD. Relative risk of any fracture ranged from 1.98 at the age of 50 years to 1.66 at the age of 85 years. For osteoporotic fracture, the range of relative risk was 2.63-1.71, and for hip fracture 4.42-2.48. The estimate of relative risk was higher at younger ages, but not significantly so. No significant difference in risk was seen between men and women. The risk was marginally and not significantly upwardly adjusted when BMD was excluded from the model. The risk was independent of prior fracture. In the three cohorts that documented current corticosteroid use, BMD was significantly reduced at the femoral neck, but fracture risk was still only partly explained by BMD. CONCLUSION: We conclude that prior and current exposure to corticosteroids confers an increased risk of fracture that is of substantial importance beyond that explained by the measurement of BMD. Its identification on an international basis validates the use of this risk factor in case-finding strategies.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.082

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0150.054
Bibliometrics0.0060.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.336
GPT teacher head0.493
Teacher spread0.158 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations838
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Bone and Mineral ResearchSame topicBone health and osteoporosis researchFrench-language works237,207