MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2000812132 · doi:10.1359/jbmr.081103

Vertebral Fracture Status and the World Health Organization Risk Factors for Predicting Osteoporotic Fracture Risk

2008· article· en· W2000812132 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Peiqi Chen, John H. Krege, Jonathan D. Adachi, Jerilynn C. Prior, Alan Tenenhouse, Jacques P. Brown, Emmanuel Papadimitropoulos, Nancy Kreiger, Wojciech P. Olszynski, Robert G. Josse, David Goltzman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Bone and Mineral Research · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and osteoporosis research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanUniversité LavalMcGill UniversityUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of TorontoMcMaster University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchProcter and Gamble
KeywordsMedicineOsteoporosisRisk factorCohortProspective cohort studyCohort studyRisk assessmentPopulationPhysical therapyHip fractureOsteoporotic fractureInternal medicineBone mineralEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Vertebral fractures are the most common osteoporotic fracture, and patients with prevalent vertebral fractures have a greater risk of future fractures. However, radiographically determined vertebral fractures are not identified as a distinct risk factor in the World Health Organization (WHO) fracture risk assessment tool. The objective of this study was to evaluate and compare potential risk factors including morphometric spine fracture status and the WHO risk factors for predicting 5-yr fracture risk. We hypothesized that spine fracture status provides prognostic information in addition to consideration of the WHO risk factors alone. A randomly selected, population-based community cohort of 2761 noninstitutionalized men and women > or =50 yr of age living within 50 km of one of nine regional centers was enrolled in the Canadian Multicentre Osteoporosis Study (CaMOS), a prospective and longitudinal cohort study following subjects for 5 yr. Prevalent and incident spine fractures were identified from lateral spine radiographs. Incident nonvertebral fragility fractures were determined by an annual, mailed fracture questionnaire with validation, and nonvertebral fragility fracture was defined by investigators as a fracture with minimal trauma. A model considering the WHO risk factors plus spine fracture status provided greater prognostic information regarding future fracture risk than a model considering the WHO risk factors alone. In univariate analyses, age, BMD, and spine fracture status had the highest gradient of risk. A model considering these three risk factors captured almost all of the predictive information provided by a model considering spine fracture status plus the WHO risk factors and provided greater predictive information than a model considering the WHO risk factors alone. The use of spine fracture status along with age and BMD predicted future fracture risk with greater simplicity and higher prognostic accuracy than consideration of the risk factors included in the WHO tool.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.325 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations84
Published2008
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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