Mandibular cortical indices on cone‐beam computed tomography images in osteoporotic women on treatment with oral bisphosphonates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the mandibular cortical indices in osteoporotic women receiving oral bisphosphonates (oBPs). MATERIAL AND METHODS: The study group included 46 Caucasian women aged over 55 years on treatment with oBPs for postmenopausal osteoporosis. Information recorded included age, weight, height, type of oBP, duration of treatment, comorbid conditions and coadjuvant medication. Forty-six age-matched Caucasian women with no known diagnosis of osteoporosis were selected as the control group. All participants underwent cone-beam computed tomography, and the mandibular cortical width (MCW) and the height from the inferior mandibular border to the mental foramen (MBMF) were measured. RESULTS: The MBMF was similar in the participants with osteoporosis and in controls. MCW was significantly greater in the participants with osteoporosis than in the controls (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Mandibular cortical width should not be used to predict the risk of bisphosphonate-associated osteonecrosis of the jaws.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".