Bone Health and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To systematically review the literature related to bone health in older adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of the literature from January 2005 until February 2010, using keywords related to T2DM and bone-health imaging technology in older adults (aged ≥60 years) to search PubMed, OVID MEDLINE, Ageline, CINAHL, Embase, and PsycINFO. RESULTS: We found a total of 13 studies that met the inclusion criteria for this review. The majority of the studies used dual X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) and showed either higher or similar areal bone mineral density (aBMD) for older adults with T2DM relative to healthy controls. Studies using more advanced imaging suggested that there may be differences in bone geometry between older adults with and without T2DM. CONCLUSIONS: Older adults with T2DM have similar or higher aBMD at the hip relative to older adults without T2DM, despite previous literature reporting an increased risk of low-trauma fractures. Recent studies with advanced imaging have suggested that there may be differences in bone geometry between older adults with T2DM and those without. Health professionals, especially physiotherapists, should be aware of the increased risk and include assessment of fall risk factors and exercise prescription for fall prevention for older adults with T2DM.
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 | 0.003 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".