MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2135203315 · doi:10.1016/j.bone.2013.10.006

Denosumab compared with risedronate in postmenopausal women suboptimally adherent to alendronate therapy: Efficacy and safety results from a randomized open-label study

2013· article· en· W2135203315 on OpenAlexaff
C. Roux, Lorenz C. Hofbauer, Pei‐Ran Ho, John D. Wark, M. Carola Zillikens, Astrid Fahrleitner‐Pammer, Federico Hawkins, Maïté Micaëlo, Salvatore Minisola, Νικόλαος Παπαϊωάννου, Mike Stone, I. Ferreira, Suresh Siddhanti, Rachel B. Wagman, Jacques P. Brown

Bibliographic record

VenueBone · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersAmgen
KeywordsMedicineDenosumabFemoral neckBone mineralOsteoporosisRandomized controlled trialUrologyClinical endpointBone remodelingSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Denosumab has been shown to reduce new vertebral, nonvertebral, and hip fractures in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. In subjects who were treatment-naïve or previously treated with alendronate, denosumab was associated with greater gains in bone mineral density (BMD) and decreases in bone turnover markers when compared with alendronate-treated subjects. This trial was designed to compare the efficacy and safety of denosumab with risedronate over 12 months in postmenopausal women who transitioned from daily or weekly alendronate treatment and were considered to be suboptimally adherent to therapy. In this randomized, open-label study, postmenopausal women aged ≥55 years received denosumab 60 mg subcutaneously every 6 months or risedronate 150 mg orally every month for 12 months. Endpoints included percentage change from baseline in total hip BMD (primary endpoint), femoral neck, and lumbar spine BMD at month 12, and percentage change from baseline in sCTX-1 at months 1 and 6. Safety was also assessed. A total of 870 subjects were randomized (435, risedronate; 435, denosumab) who had a mean (SD) age of 67.7 (6.9) years, mean (SD) BMD T-scores of -1.6 (0.9), -1.9 (0.7), and -2.2 (1.2) at the total hip, femoral neck, and lumbar spine, respectively, and median sCTX-1 of 0.3 ng/mL at baseline. At month 12, denosumab significantly increased BMD compared with risedronate at the total hip (2.0% vs 0.5%), femoral neck (1.4% vs 0%), and lumbar spine (3.4% vs 1.1%; p<0.0001 at all sites). Denosumab significantly decreased sCTX-1 compared with risedronate at month 1 (median change from baseline of -78% vs -17%; p<0.0001) and month 6 (-61% vs -23%; p<0.0001). Overall and serious adverse events were similar between groups. In postmenopausal women who were suboptimally adherent to alendronate therapy, transitioning to denosumab was well tolerated and more effective than risedronate in increasing BMD and reducing bone turnover.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations158
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueBoneSame topicBone health and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207