MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2125739995 · doi:10.1542/peds.2006-2023i

Experience With Bisphosphonates in Osteogenesis Imperfecta

2007· article· en· W2125739995 on OpenAlexaff
Francis H. Glorieux

Bibliographic record

VenuePEDIATRICS · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicConnective tissue disorders research
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOsteogenesis imperfectaMedicineBone Density Conservation AgentsBisphosphonateBone remodelingOsteoporosisBone densityDentistrySurgeryInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Until recently, medical management of osteogenesis imperfecta, a genetic disorder of reduced bone mass and frequent fractures, was elusive, and treatment was focused on maximizing mobility and function. The introduction of bisphosphonates for the treatment of osteogenesis imperfecta 14 years ago changed this paradigm. Cyclic intravenous pamidronate therapy leads to an increase in bone density and a decrease in fracture rate in patients with osteogenesis imperfecta. Pamidronate therapy has a positive impact on functional parameters including improved energy, decreased bone pain, and increased ambulation. Histomorphometric studies have shown that the reduced osteoclast activity results in gains in cortical thickness and trabecular bone volume. Potential negative effects may include prolonged time to heal after osteotomies and a decrease in the rate of bone remodeling. Overall, it seems clear that the benefits of pamidronate therapy outweigh its potential risks in moderate-to-severe osteogenesis imperfecta, and pamidronate therapy has become the standard of care for patients with this condition. Questions remain regarding when treatment should be stopped and the need for pamidronate therapy in patients with mild osteogenesis imperfecta.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.476
Threshold uncertainty score0.376

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.273 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations115
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePEDIATRICSSame topicConnective tissue disorders researchFrench-language works237,207