Differing effects of denosumab and alendronate on cortical and trabecular bone
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Vertebral fractures and trabecular bone loss are hallmarks of osteoporosis. However, 80% of fractures are non-vertebral and 70% of all bone loss is cortical and is produced by intracortical remodeling. The resulting cortical porosity increases bone fragility exponentially. Denosumab, a fully human anti-RANKL antibody, reduces the rate of bone remodeling more than alendronate. The aim of this study was to quantify the effects of denosumab and alendronate on cortical and trabecular bone. Postmenopausal women, mean age 61years (range 50 to 70), were randomized double blind to placebo (n=82), alendronate 70mg weekly (n=82), or denosumab 60mg every 6months (n=83) for 12months. Porosity of the compact-appearing cortex (CC), outer and inner cortical transitional zones (OTZ, ITZ), and trabecular bone volume/total volume (BV/TV) of distal radius were quantified in vivo from high-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography scans. Denosumab reduced remodeling more rapidly and completely than alendronate, reduced porosity of the three cortical regions at 6months, more so by 12months relative to baseline and controls, and 1.5- to 2-fold more so than alendronate. The respective changes at 12months were [mean (95% CI)]; CC: -1.26% (-1.61, -0.91) versus -0.48% (-0.96, 0.00), p=0.012; OTZ: -1.97% (-2.37, -1.56) versus -0.81% (-1.45, -0.17), p=0.003; and ITZ: -1.17% (-1.38, -0.97) versus -0.78% (-1.04, -0.52), p=0.021. Alendronate reduced porosity of the three cortical regions at 6months relative to baseline and controls but further decreased porosity of only the ITZ at 12months. By 12months, CC porosity was no different than baseline or controls, OTZ porosity was reduced only relative to baseline, not controls, while ITZ porosity was reduced relative to baseline and 6months, but not controls. Each treatment increased trabecular BV/TV volume similarly: 0.25% (0.19, 0.30) versus 0.19% (0.13, 0.30), p=0.208. The greater reduction in cortical porosity by denosumab may be due to greater inhibition of intracortical remodeling. Head to head studies are needed to determine whether differences in porosity result in differing fracture outcomes.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".