Risk of Severe Upper Gastrointestinal Complications among Oral Bisphosphonate Users
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Oral bisphosphonates (BPs) are the primary agents for the treatment of osteoporosis. Although BPs are generally well tolerated, serious gastrointestinal adverse events have been observed. AIM: To assess the risk of severe upper gastrointestinal complications (UGIC) among BP users by means of a large study based on a network of Italian healthcare utilization databases. METHODS: A nested case-control study was carried out by including 110,220 patients aged 45 years or older who, from 2003 until 2005, were treated with oral BPs. Cases were the 862 patients who experienced the outcome (hospitalization for UGIC) until 2007. Up to 20 controls were randomly selected for each case. Conditional logistic regression model was used to estimate odds ratio (OR) associated with current use of BPs after adjusting for several covariates. A set of sensitivity analyses was performed in order to account for sources of systematic uncertainty. RESULTS: The adjusted OR for current use of BPs with respect to past use was 0.94 (95% CI 0.81 to 1.08). There was no evidence that this risk changed either with BP type and regimen, or concurrent use of other drugs or previous hospitalizations. CONCLUSIONS: No evidence was found that current use of BPs increases the risk of severe upper gastrointestinal complications compared to past use.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".