MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2062986058 · doi:10.1139/h10-011

Does childhood and adolescence fracture influence bone mineral content in young adulthood?

2010· article· en· W2062986058 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Chantal E. Kawalilak, Adam Baxter‐Jones, Robert A. Faulkner, D. A. Bailey, Saija Kontulainen

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Physiology Nutrition and Metabolism · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and osteoporosis research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineYoung adultBone mineral contentFemoral neckPeak bone massBone mineralAnthropometryInternal medicineOsteoporosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Previous fracture may predispose an individual to bone fragility because of impaired bone mineral accrual. The primary objective of the study was to investigate the influence of fractures sustained during childhood and (or) adolescence on total body (TB), lumbar spine (LS), femoral neck (FN), and total hip (TH) bone mineral content (BMC) in young adulthood. It was hypothesized that there would be lower TB, LS, FN, and TH BMC in participants who had sustained a pediatric fracture. Participant anthropometrics, physical activity, and BMC (measured with dual energy X-ray absorptiometry) were assessed longitudinally during childhood and adolescence (from 1991 to 1997), and again in young adulthood (2002 to 2006). Sex, adult height, adult lean mass, adult physical activity, and adolescent BMC adjusted TB, LS, FN, and TH BMC in young adulthood, for those who reported 1 or more fractures (n = 42), were compared with those who reported no fractures (n = 101). There were no significant differences (p > 0.05) in adjusted BMC between fracture and nonfracture groups at the TB, LS, FN, and TH sites in young adulthood. These results suggest that fractures sustained during childhood and adolescence may not interfere with bone mass in young adulthood at clinically relevant bone sites.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
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 integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2010
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied Physiology Nutrition and Metabolism→Same topicBone health and osteoporosis research→French-language works237,207→