Markers of Bone Formation and Resorption Identify Subgroups of Patients with Clinical Knee Osteoarthritis Who Have Reduced Rates of Cartilage Loss
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether serum markers of bone formation and resorption, used individually or in combination, can be used to identify subgroups who lose cartilage volume at different rates over 2 years within a knee osteoarthritis (OA) population. METHODS: Changes in cartilage volume over 2 years were measured in 117 subjects with knee OA using magnetic resonance imaging. We examined relationships between change in cartilage volume and baseline serum markers of bone formation [intact N-terminal propeptide of type I procollagen (PINP) and osteocalcin] and resorption [N-telopeptide of type I collagen (NTX-I), C-telopeptide of type I collagen (CTX-I), and C-telopeptide of type I collagen (ICTP). RESULTS: The baseline markers of bone formation, PINP and osteocalcin (p = 0.02, p = 0.01, respectively), and the baseline markers of bone resorption, CTX-I and NTX-I (p = 0.02 for both), were significantly associated with reduced cartilage loss. There were no significant associations between baseline ratios of bone formation to resorption markers and cartilage loss. However, when subjects were divided into subgroups with high or low bone formation markers (based on levels of marker >or= mean or < mean for the population, respectively), in the subgroup with high PINP there was a significant association between increasing bone resorption markers CTX-I and NTX-I and reduced cartilage loss (p = 0.02, p = 0.001, respectively). Similarly, in the subgroup with high osteocalcin, there was a significant association between increasing CTX-I and NTX-I and reduced cartilage loss (p = 0.02, p = 0.003, respectively). In contrast, in subgroups with low bone formation markers, no significant associations were obtained between markers of bone resorption and cartilage loss. CONCLUSION: Overall, the results suggest that higher bone remodeling (i.e., higher serum levels of bone formation and resorption) is associated with reduced cartilage loss. Considering markers of bone formation and resorption together, it is possible to identify subgroups within the OA population who have reduced rates of cartilage loss.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".