Bone Health Care for Patients With Prostate Cancer Receiving Androgen Deprivation Therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patients with prostate cancer often receive androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) as part of their treatment regimen. However, treatment with ADT causes multiple side effects, including reduced bone mineral density (BMD), lower lean body mass, and a higher risk for fractures. Several organizations provide clinical practice guidelines for osteoporosis screening, prevention, and treatment in this population, but adherence to these guidelines remains low. Areas for improvement in provider adherence include baseline and follow-up BMD testing, as well as counseling regarding healthy bone behaviors such as calcium/vitamin D intake, lifestyle changes, and physical exercise. Comparison of osteoporosis care in breast cancer and non-oncology populations shows that suboptimal bone health care is not isolated to prostate cancer. A summary of the literature examining improvements in patient adherence and provider delivery of bone health care is included in this review, but high-quality studies are lacking. Patients may be the most receptive to written educational information delivered at or near the time of ADT initiation. Involvement of a primary care practitioner and oncologist in care delivery is associated with higher BMD test use. Institution-level programs that automatically initiate osteoporosis screening and management may be effective at reducing the incidence of hip fracture. Lastly, suggestions are provided for future approaches to knowledge translation and quality of care studies to improve bone health.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".