Fracture risk prediction: importance of age, BMD and spine fracture status
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our purpose was to identify factors for a parsimonious fracture risk assessment model considering morphometric spine fracture status, femoral neck bone mineral density (BMD) and the World Health Organization (WHO) clinical risk factors. Using data from 2761 subjects from the Canadian Multicentre Osteoporosis Study (CaMos), a prospective, longitudinal cohort study of randomly selected community-dwelling men and women aged ⩾50 years, we previously reported that a logistic regression model considering age, BMD and spine fracture status provided as much predictive information as a model considering these factors plus the remaining WHO clinical risk factors. The current analysis assesses morphometric vertebral fracture and/or nonvertebral fragility fracture at 5 years using data from an additional 1964 CaMos subjects who have now completed 5 years of follow-up (total N=4725). Vertebral fractures were identified from lateral spine radiographs assessed using quantititative morphometry at baseline and end point. Nonvertebral fragility fractures were determined by questionnaire and confirmed using radiographs or medical records; fragility fracture was defined as occurring with minimal or no trauma. In this analysis, a model including age, BMD and spine fracture status provided a gradient of risk per s.d. (GR/s.d.) of 1.88 and captured most of the predictive information of a model including morphometric spine fracture status, BMD and all WHO clinical risk factors (GR/s.d. 1.92). For comparison, this model provided more information than a model considering BMD and the WHO clinical risk factors (GR/s.d. 1.74). These findings confirm the value of age, BMD and spine fracture status for predicting fracture risk.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".