Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prince RL, Devine A, Dhaliwal SS, et al. Effects of calcium supplementation on clinical fracture and bone structure: results of a 5-year, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in elderly women. Arch Intern Med 2006;166:869–75. [OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] Q In ambulatory elderly women unselected for low bone mass, does calcium supplementation reduce the risk of fractures? Clinical impact ratings GP/FP/Primary care ★★★★★☆☆ Public health ★★★★★★☆ Geriatrics ★★★★★☆☆ ### ![Graphic][5]</img>Design: randomised, placebo controlled trial. ### ![Graphic][6]</img>Allocation: concealed.* ### ![Graphic][7]</img>Blinding: blinded {patients, healthcare providers, data collectors, and outcome assessors}†.* ### ![Graphic][8]</img>Follow up period: 5 years. ### ![Graphic][9]</img>Setting: population-based study in Western Australia. ### ![Graphic][10]</img>Participants: 1460 ambulatory women >70 years of age (mean age 75 y) who were not taking any medication affecting bone mass and were expected to survive >5 years. ### ![Graphic][11]</img>Intervention: calcium carbonate, 600 mg twice daily with meals (n = 730), or placebo (n = 730). ### ![Graphic][12]</img>Outcomes: incident atraumatic clinical fractures and symptomatic vertebral fractures (self reported and confirmed by radiographic reports), and adverse events requiring medical attention. … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DArchives%2Bof%2BInternal%2BMedicine%26rft.stitle%253DArch%2BIntern%2BMed%26rft.issn%253D0003-9926%26rft.aulast%253DPrince%26rft.auinit1%253DR.%2BL.%26rft.volume%253D166%26rft.issue%253D8%26rft.spage%253D869%26rft.epage%253D875%26rft.atitle%253DEffects%2Bof%2BCalcium%2BSupplementation%2Bon%2BClinical%2BFracture%2Band%2BBone%2BStructure%253A%2BResults%2Bof%2Ba%2B5-Year%252C%2BDouble-blind%252C%2BPlacebo-Controlled%2BTrial%2Bin%2BElderly%2BWomen.%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1001%252Farchinte.166.8.869%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F16636212%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1001/archinte.166.8.869&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=16636212&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febmed%2F11%2F5%2F149.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000237026000006&link_type=ISI [5]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif [6]: /embed/inline-graphic-2.gif [7]: /embed/inline-graphic-3.gif [8]: /embed/inline-graphic-4.gif [9]: /embed/inline-graphic-5.gif [10]: /embed/inline-graphic-6.gif [11]: /embed/inline-graphic-7.gif [12]: /embed/inline-graphic-8.gif
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Randomized trial | low |
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".