MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2126426023 · doi:10.1503/cmaj.090710

Accuracy of patient-reported height loss and risk factors for height loss among postmenopausal women

2010· article· en· W2126426023 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Karine Briot, E. Legrand, Denis Pouchain, Stéphanie Monnier, Christian Roux

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Medical Association Journal · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and osteoporosis research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineConfidence intervalOsteoporosisOdds ratioDemographyPediatricsInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Since loss of height may indicate vertebral fracture, the accuracy of the information on height is relevant for clinical practice. We undertook this study to compare reported and measured loss of height among post-menopausal women in a primary care setting. We also analyzed the determinants of this height loss. METHODS: In an observational study conducted between December 2007 and May 2008, we asked 1779 randomly selected general practitioners to recruit the first five female patients who were more than 60 years of age, regardless of the reason for the consultation. Using a questionnaire, physicians collected data on demographic and clinical variables, history of osteoporosis and current anti-osteoporotic treatment. We used three assessments of height: tallest height in early adulthood recalled by the patient, estimated current height reported by the patient at the visit and current measured height. We defined loss of height as the difference between the patient's tallest recalled height and her current measured height. RESULTS: A total of 8610 patients were included in the analysis; the mean age was 70.9 (standard deviation [SD] 7.2) years. The mean loss of height was 4.5 cm. The mean current reported height was 2.1 (SD 2.5) cm lower than the tallest recalled height and 2.4 (SD 2.6) cm lower than the measured current height. The best predictors of a loss of height of 3 cm or more were age (odds ratio [OR] 1.09, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.08-1.10), previous vertebral fracture (OR 1.49, 95% CI 1.16-1.91), previous nonvertebral fracture (OR 1.26, 95% CI 1.06-1.51), thoracic kyphosis (OR 2.07, 95% CI 1.69-2.55), scoliosis (OR 1.35, 95% CI 1.12-1.63), back pain (OR 1.22, 95% CI 1.07-1.39) and osteoporosis (OR 1.39, 95% CI 1.20-1.60). INTERPRETATION: Our study showed that the patients' estimated current height was not correct, with a mean difference of -2.5 cm from the current measured height. The mean height loss was 4.5 cm. Previous vertebral fracture and thoracic kyphosis were strong determinants of the height loss.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations53
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Medical Association JournalSame topicBone health and osteoporosis researchFrench-language works237,207