MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2143018650 · doi:10.3899/jrheum.090535

Bisphosphonates in Patients with Glucocorticoids: Time for Implementation

2009· editorial· en· W2143018650 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Willem F. Lems

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Rheumatology · 2009
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersVrije Universiteit Amsterdam
KeywordsMedicineDownregulation and upregulationEndocrinologyInternal medicineBone resorptionOsteoporosisSclerostinOsteoblastRANKLBone diseaseOsteoprotegerinGlucocorticoidWnt signaling pathwayChemistryIn vitroSignal transductionCell biologyBiologyReceptorBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Use of glucocorticoids (GC) may have devastating effects on bone quality1. From earlier histomorphometric data, we know that bone formation is inhibited by direct suppression of osteoblast function during the use of GC, while bone resorption is unchanged or even elevated, at least partly related to decreased intestinal calcium absorption, elevated urinary calcium excretion, and a tendency to secondary hyperparathyroidism2,3. However, exciting new data provide additional insights into the pathogenesis of Glucocorticoid Induced OsteoPorosis (GIOP)2,3: (1) upregulation of the Wnt inhibitor Dickkopf-1, leading to inhibition of bone formation; (2) increased apoptosis of osteoblasts and osteocytes; (3) differentiation of mesenchymal stem cells into the direction of adipocytes, instead of into osteoblasts; (4) elevated lifespan of osteoclasts, due to decreased apoptosis; and (5) upregulation of expression of RANKL in osteoblasts (and downregulation of osteoprotegerin). Nevertheless, it is important to realize that the (negative) direct and indirect effects of GC on bone are counteracted by the immunosuppressive effects of GC on the underlying disease2,3. Another complicating factor is that use of GC and the underlying disease may both be associated with muscular weakness and, subsequently, increased risk of falling. Use of GC is associated with bone loss, particularly in the early phase of treatment, when the dosage of GC is usually high and the underlying disease for which the GC are prescribed is active. In contrast, in the chronic phase, bone loss may be mild in GC-treated patients, related to the use of lower dosages of GC and to low or preferably absent disease activity. In addition, use of GC is also associated with elevated risk of fracture: In a retrospective cohort study with 244,235 GC-treated patients and the same number of age and sex matched controls, the fracture … Address correspondence to Prof. Lems. E-mail: wf.lems{at}vumc.nl

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)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.081

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0240.005

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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

Citations1
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Rheumatology→Same topicBone health and treatments→French-language works237,207→