Impact of denosumab on the peripheral skeleton of postmenopausal women with osteoporosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to report the effects of denosumab on radius cortical and trabecular bone density, mass, and strength, and wrist fracture incidence in the FREEDOM (Fracture REduction Evaluation of Denosumab in Osteoporosis every 6 Months) study. METHODS: In the FREEDOM study, postmenopausal women with osteoporosis (N = 7,808) received placebo or 60 mg of denosumab every 6 months for 36 months. Radius bone mineral density (BMD), bone mineral content, and strength (polar moment of inertia) were evaluated in two prespecified substudies using dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (placebo, n = 209; denosumab, n = 232) or quantitative CT (placebo, n = 48; denosumab, n = 62). Prespecified analysis assessed wrist fracture incidence in all FREEDOM participants (placebo, N = 3,906; denosumab, N = 3,902), and post hoc subgroup analyses evaluated those with higher fracture risk (baseline femoral neck T-score ≤-2.5; placebo, N = 1,406; denosumab, N = 1,384). RESULTS: Denosumab significantly increased areal BMD (assessed by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry) and volumetric BMD, bone mineral content, and polar moment of inertia (assessed by quantitative CT), compared with placebo, in radius cortical and trabecular bone at all time points evaluated (all P < 0.05). Wrist fracture incidence was 2.9% for placebo and 2.5% for denosumab (relative risk reduction, 16%; P = 0.21) on month 36. Participants with a femoral neck T-score of -2.5 or lower were at increased risk for wrist fracture, and denosumab significantly reduced wrist fracture incidence compared with placebo (placebo, 4.0%; denosumab, 2.4%; relative risk reduction, 40%; absolute risk reduction, 1.6%; P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Denosumab significantly improves radius bone density, mass, and strength compared with placebo. In higher-risk women, denosumab significantly reduces wrist fracture risk.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".