Upper gastrointestinal toxicity of alendronate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Alendronate is rapidly gaining widespread use in the treatment of osteoporosis. However, recent postmarketing surveys and endoscopic studies suggest that its use may be associated with significant predictable esophageal and gastric mucosal toxicity, similar to that of aspirin and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Because treatment of osteoporosis may be needed in as many as 30% of all postmenopausal women, and considering that alendronate could be used in all postmenopausal women as prevention, definition of potential mucosal toxicity is crucial. Our aim was to study the upper gastrointestinal toxicity of alendronate in an age-appropriate female population using a clinically applicable dose (10 mg/day) to determine whether it causes predictable damage in the proximal gastrointestinal mucosa in a fashion similar to that seen with aspirin and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. METHODS: We conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial in 32 healthy female volunteers between the ages of 40 and 65 yr recruited by newspaper advertisement. Endoscopic mucosal abnormalities in the esophagus, stomach, and duodenum both before and after 1 month of treatment were scored and compared using validated endoscopic grading systems. Symptom scores before and after treatment were determined. Noninvasive measurements of gastrointestinal permeability were obtained before, during, and after treatment using sucrose and mannitol/lactulose urinary excretions. RESULTS: Endoscopic scores before and after treatment with alendronate were not significantly different. Similarly, mean symptom scores in the alendronate group did not change significantly after treatment. There were no significant mucosal permeability changes in the stomach or small intestine after treatment. CONCLUSION: Alendronate does not cause predictable esophageal, gastric, or duodenal mucosal damage when used as directed.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".