Cohort Profile: Geelong Osteoporosis Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Geelong Osteoporosis Study (GOS) began as a population-based study designed to investigate the epidemiology of osteoporosis in Australia. Osteoporosis is a systemic skeletal disease characterized by low bone mineral density (BMD) and micro-architectural deterioration of bone tissue, with a consequent increase in susceptibility to fracture.1 Fragility fractures at the spine, hip, wrist and other sites are a major public health problem in both sexes because these fractures are responsible for considerable morbidity and mortality.2,3 Fractures cost the Australian community an estimated $7 billion annually4 and this is expected to increase in absolute terms because of the ageing population.5 The cohort was recruited to address the need for definitive data on the prevalence of osteoporosis, to describe age-related changes in BMD and to characterize the risks for osteoporosis and fracture. Initially the GOS comprised only women; men were recruited later. In addition to the cohort study, the GOS has developed a comprehensive fracture register for the study region and has also conducted case–control studies to investigate risk factors for fracture. Only the cohort study will be described here.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
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".