Screening for Osteoporosis: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Letters16 August 2011Screening for Osteoporosis: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation StatementAlfred K. Pfister, MD, Christine W. Welch, MS, and Mary Emmett, PhDAlfred K. Pfister, MDFrom West Virginia University, Charlestown, WV 25304.Search for more papers by this author, Christine W. Welch, MSFrom West Virginia University, Charlestown, WV 25304.Search for more papers by this author, and Mary Emmett, PhDFrom West Virginia University, Charlestown, WV 25304.Search for more papers by this authorAuthor, Article, and Disclosure Informationhttps://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-155-4-201108160-00020 SectionsAboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail TO THE EDITOR:We read the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) article (1) with great interest. The World Health Organization FRAX (Fracture Risk Assessment) formula has made it easier for primary care physicians to better identify individuals at high risk for future fractures. In addition to recommending initiation of treatment in patients with central densitometry T-scores of −2.5 or less, the National Osteoporosis Foundation advocated treatment in patients with T-scores between −1.0 and −2.5 if the 10-year probability of fracture is 3% or more at the hip or 20% or more at a major site (such as humerus, hip, ...References1. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for osteoporosis: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2011;154:356-64. [PMID: 21242341] LinkGoogle Scholar2. National Osteoporosis Foundation. Clinician's Guide to Prevention and Treatment of Osteoporosis. Washington, DC: National Osteoporosis Foundation; 2008. Google Scholar3. Baim S, Binkley N, Bilezikian JP, Kendler DL, Hans DB, Lewiecki EM, et al. Official Positions of the International Society for Clinical Densitometry and executive summary of the 2007 ISCD Position Development Conference. J Clin Densitom. 2008;11:75-91. [PMID: 18442754] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar4. Leslie WD, Majumdar SR, Lix LM, Johansson H, Oden A, McCloskey E, et al; for the Manitoba Bone Density Program. High fracture probability with FRAX(®) usually indicates densitometric osteoporosis: implications for clinical practice. Osteoporos Int. 2011;:. [PMID: 21365460] MedlineGoogle Scholar Author, Article, and Disclosure InformationAffiliations: From West Virginia University, Charlestown, WV 25304.Disclosures: None disclosed. PreviousarticleNextarticle Advertisement FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsSee AlsoScreening for Osteoporosis: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation StatementScreening for Osteoporosis: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement Christopher Nordin Screening for Osteoporosis: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement Virginia A. Moyer , Michael L. LeFevre , and Albert L. Siu Metrics Cited byThe prevalence of overtreatment of osteoporosis: results from the PAADRN trialEvaluando la masa ósea en pacientes con lupus eritematoso sistémicoRecent advances in the treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus 16 August 2011Volume 155, Issue 4Page: 275-276KeywordsDensitometryForecastingHipMedical risk factorsOsteoporosisPatient advocacyQuestionnaires ePublished: 16 August 2011 Issue Published: 16 August 2011 Copyright & PermissionsCopyright © 2011 by American College of Physicians. All Rights Reserved.PDF downloadLoading ...
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 | 0.012 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.069 | 0.044 |
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".