High-Risk Patients' Readiness to Undergo BMD Testing for Osteoporosis Diagnosis in Pennsylvania
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to better understand high-risk patients' readiness to engage in bone mineral density (BMD) testing to diagnose osteoporosis. Six hundred thirty-six participants in a randomized control trial for patients at high-risk for osteoporosis were surveyed. BMD screening readiness was measured by a three-item summative index. Multivariable linear regression examined the relationship between patients' scores on the index and constructs of osteoporosis and BMD testing knowledge, concern for developing osteoporosis and self-efficacy to engage in fall prevention behaviors. Participants had a mean age of 79 years, 96% were female and 80% were white. Greater concern for developing osteoporosis and better knowledge about BMD testing were significant predictors of a higher score on the index. Improving high-risk patients' knowledge about osteoporosis and the importance of BMD testing may enhance patients' readiness to undergo BMD testing. We found several correlates of readiness to undergo BMD screening that may be used to design effective interventions.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".