Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Over the past few years, a number of studies have examined the relationship between breast cancer and osteoporosis, the effect of breast cancer treatment on bone health, and the effect of osteoporosis therapies on aromatase inhibitor-induced bone loss and breast cancer recurrence. New guidelines have been released on the prevention of osteoporotic fractures in women with breast cancer who are on aromatase inhibitors for adjuvant therapy. RECENT FINDINGS: Despite common factors linking high bone mineral density and increased risk of breast cancer, women with breast cancer are not protected from osteoporosis or osteoporotic fractures. Recent data suggest that aromatase inhibitors have a detrimental effect on bone mineral density and can increase the risk of fractures. Bisphosphonate therapy not only preserves aromatase inhibitor-induced bone loss, but may also improve disease-free survival and decrease risk of death in select women with breast cancer (i.e., postmenopausal women). SUMMARY: Osteoporosis and breast cancer are common in women, especially in postmenopausal women. Current guidelines suggest that we need to pay special attention to those on aromatase inhibitors to prevent adverse bone outcomes.
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) | 0.002 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".