Bone Mineral Density Is Not Related to Osteophyte Formation in Osteoarthritis of the Hip
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Reports have suggested that bone mineral density (BMD) is higher in patients with osteoarthritis (OA) of the hip than in healthy controls. Various types of OA of the hip caused by osteophyte formation were observed on radiographs during progression to the advanced degenerative stage, and the preoperative type of OA was reported to influence the results of surgical treatment. However, the mechanism underlying the development of different types of OA is still unknown. We measured BMD of patients with hip OA and determined whether higher BMD was observed in patients with osteophyte formation than in those without osteophytes. METHODS: We measured BMD of the lumbar spine, radius, and calcaneus using dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry in 88 women who were scheduled to undergo total hip arthroplasty for endstage OA. Hips were evaluated for osteophyte formation using Bombelli's classification; 31 were graded as atrophic type, 30 as normotrophic, and 27 as hypertrophic. BMD at different skeletal sites were compared among the 3 types of OA. RESULTS: No significant difference in BMD of the lumbar spine, ultradistal radius, mid-radius, or calcaneus was observed among the atrophic, normotrophic, and hypertrophic types of OA. CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that osteophyte formation is not related to general BMD. Factors other than general bone status, for example the morphology of the hip joint, need to be analyzed to determine the pathomechanism of osteophyte formation in the osteoarthritic hip.
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 | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".