Association of pelvic organ prolapse and fractures in postmenopausal women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Testing a hypothesis that pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is a focal manifestation of disordered connective tissue, we evaluated whether there is an association between POP and history of fracture. DESIGN: This was a case-control study. Baseline data were from postmenopausal women aged 60 years or older enrolled in the Women's Health Initiative Estrogen Plus Progestin trial. Distinct variants (cystocele, rectocele, and uterovaginal) and severity (mild, moderate, or severe) of POP were recognized. A history of "fracture after age 55" was considered as the event of interest. RESULTS: Moderate to severe POP was identified in 9% of 11,096 participants aged 60 years or older. Women with moderate to severe rectocele were significantly more likely to report fracture (odds ratio: 1.37, 95% CI: 1.06-1.77, P = 0.02) compared with those with absent to mild prolapse. Of the subset of participants who underwent bone mineral density assessment, those with moderate to severe prolapse demonstrated significantly lower whole-body bone mineral density ([beta] = -0.03, SE 0.02); this difference was of borderline significance (P = 0.05) compared with that for participants with absent to mild POP. Multivariate logistic regression analysis confirmed an independent association between moderate to severe rectocele and fracture (odds ratio: 1.45, 95% CI: 1.08-1.95, P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate a relationship between moderate to severe POP and low bone mineral density in postmenopausal women enrolled in the Women's Health Initiative Estrogen Plus Progestin trial. Our findings of an association between clinically significant (moderate to severe) POP, specifically rectocele, and a history of fracture suggest that suboptimal collagen status purported to associate with POP may also involve bone collagen and hence translate into skeletal compromise.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".