Oral bisphosphonates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study was conducted to review the efficacy and safety of oral bisphosphonates for the treatment of bone metastases in cancer patients. METHODS: Available published clinical studies of oral bisphosphonates in bone metastases from 1980 to the present were identified through a MEDLINE search and from literature references. Data were reviewed for efficacy and safety, with an emphasis on double blind, placebo-controlled studies; clinically relevant endpoints; and appropriate study methodology. RESULTS: Etidronate, alendronate, pamidronate, risedronate, and tiludronate currently are available in the U.S. as either intravenous and/or oral formulations. Although newer bisphosphonates are more potent, oral bioavailability remains < 1%. Oral etidronate has been found to be ineffective in patients with multiple myeloma and prostate carcinoma bone metastases. Pamidronate has been found to be effective in reducing skeletal morbidity associated with bone metastases in both multiple myeloma and breast carcinoma patients when given intravenously, but is ineffective orally in multiple myeloma patients. To the authors' knowledge, there are no double blind, placebo-controlled trials of oral pamidronate in patients with breast carcinoma and bone metastases. Several clinical trials with clodronate, a bisphosphonate that is not available in the U.S., have shown mixed results in patients with myeloma and breast carcinoma bone metastases. To the authors' knowledge, there are no published trials evaluating oral alendronate, tiludronate, or risedronate in patients with metastases to bone. CONCLUSIONS: Oral bisphosphonates do not appear to be as effective as intravenous administration in reducing skeletal complications in patients with metastases to bone lesions. Low oral bioavailability is the most likely reason for this difference. Oral dosing should not be substituted for intravenous administration in the treatment of malignant osteolysis.
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) | 0.030 | 0.009 |
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".