Effect of Risedronate on the Risk of Hip Fracture in Elderly Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Risedronate increases bone mineral density in elderly women, but whether it prevents hip fracture is not known. METHODS: We studied 5445 women 70 to 79 years old who had osteoporosis (indicated by a T score for bone mineral density at the femoral neck that was more than 4 SD below the mean peak value in young adults [-4] or lower than -3 plus a nonskeletal risk factor for hip fracture, such as poor gait or a propensity to fall) and 3886 women at least 80 years old who had at least one nonskeletal risk factor for hip fracture or low bone mineral density at the femoral neck (T score, lower than -4 or lower than -3 plus a hip-axis length of 11.1 cm or greater). The women were randomly assigned to receive treatment with oral risedronate (2.5 or 5.0 mg daily) or placebo for three years. The primary end point was the occurrence of hip fracture. RESULTS: Overall, the incidence of hip fracture among all the women assigned to risedronate was 2.8 percent, as compared with 3.9 percent among those assigned to placebo (relative risk, 0.7; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.6 to 0.9; P=0.02). In the group of women with osteoporosis (those 70 to 79 years old), the incidence of hip fracture among those assigned to risedronate was 1.9 percent, as compared with 3.2 percent among those assigned to placebo (relative risk, 0.6; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.4 to 0.9; P=0.009). In the group of women selected primarily on the basis of nonskeletal risk factors (those at least 80 years of age), the incidence of hip fracture was 4.2 percent among those assigned to risedronate and 5.1 percent among those assigned to placebo (P=0.35). CONCLUSIONS: Risedronate significantly reduces the risk of hip fracture among elderly women with confirmed osteoporosis but not among elderly women selected primarily on the basis of risk factors other than low bone mineral density.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".