MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2031249660 · doi:10.1016/j.carj.2011.05.001

Osteoporosis Canada 2010 Guidelines for the Assessment of Fracture Risk

2011· article· en· W2031249660 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Association of Radiologists Journal · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and osteoporosis research
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityUniversity of AlbertaUniversité LavalUniversity of ManitobaMcGill UniversityUniversity of CalgaryMcMaster UniversityDalhousie UniversityUniversity of TorontoUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchOsteoporosis Canada
KeywordsMedicineOsteoporosisFragility fractureFragilityRisk assessmentClinical PracticeRisk management toolsOsteoporotic fractureIntensive care medicineFamily medicineBone mineralPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Osteoporosis Canada's 2010 Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Osteoporosis in Canada focus on the clinical impact of fragility fractures, and on the assessment and management of women and men at high risk for fragility fracture. These guidelines now integrate a 10-year absolute fracture risk prediction into an overall management approach by using validated risk assessment tools. There currently is a large gap between optimal practices and those that are now being provided to Canadians with osteoporosis. These guidelines are part of a concerted effort to close this gap. Key changes from the 2002 guidelines of interest and relevance to radiologists are highlighted in this report.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.371
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.288 · 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