Alendronate for the Treatment of Osteoporosis in Men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite its association with disability, death, and increased medical costs, osteoporosis in men has been relatively neglected as a subject of study. There have been no large, controlled trials of treatment in men. METHODS: In a two-year double-blind trial, we studied the effect of 10 mg of alendronate or placebo, given daily, on bone mineral density in 241 men (age, 31 to 87 years; mean, 63) with osteoporosis. Approximately one third had low serum free testosterone concentrations at base line; the rest had normal concentrations. Men with other secondary causes of osteoporosis were excluded. All the men received calcium and vitamin D supplements. The main outcome measures were the percent changes in lumbar-spine, hip, and total-body bone mineral density. RESULTS: The men who received alendronate had a mean (+/-SE) increase in bone mineral density of 7.1+/-0.3 percent at the lumbar spine, 2.5+/-0.4 percent at the femoral neck, and 2.0+/-0.2 percent for the total body (P<0.001 for all comparisons with base line). In contrast, men who received placebo had an increase in lumbar-spine bone mineral density of 1.8+/-0.5 percent (P<0.001 for the comparison with base line) and no significant changes in femoral-neck or total-body bone mineral density. The increase in bone mineral density in the alendronate group was greater than that in the placebo group at all measurement sites (P<0.001). The incidence of vertebral fractures was lower in the alendronate group than in the placebo group (0.8 percent vs. 7.1 percent, P=0.02). Men in the placebo group had a 2.4-mm decrease in height, as compared with a decrease of 0.6 mm in the alendronate group (P=0.02). Alendronate was generally well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: In men with osteoporosis, alendronate significantly increases spine, hip, and total-body bone mineral density and helps prevent vertebral fractures and decreases in height.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".