Impact on the Population of Different Bone Mineral Density Testing Criteria and Appropriateness of Densitometries in the ESOSVAL Cohort, Spain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: There is little consensus regarding which individuals should be recommended for bone mineral density (BMD) testing, a situation that could eventually affect the appropriateness of routine clinical practice. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to estimate the impact on the population of the application of the BMD testing criteria provided by the National Osteoporosis Guideline Group (NOGG), National Osteoporosis Foundation (NOF), and Osteoporosis Canada and to assess the appropriateness of the BMD tests currently performed. DESIGN: A cross-sectional study was conducted using the baseline data of the ESOSVAL cohort. PARTICIPANTS: Participants included 11 035 men and women aged 50 years old and over attending primary health care centers in the Valencia region, Spain (2009-2010). MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES: BMD testing by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry was recorded. RESULTS: Of the 10 710 people included in the study, 1617 (15.1%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 14.4-15.8) received a BMD test. When applying the NOGG criteria, BMD testing would be recommended in 17.4% (95% CI: 16.7-18.1) of individuals, whereas this percentage would rise to 74.6% (95% CI: 73.7-75.4) and 80.1% (95% CI: 79.4-80.9) when using the Osteoporosis Canada and the NOF criteria, respectively. Regarding the appropriateness of the BMD tests performed in the ESOSVAL cohort, 40.7% (95% CI: 38.3-43.1), 86.0% (95% CI: 84.3-87.7), and 82.2% (95% CI: 80.3-84.1) of individuals having a BMD test met the NOGG, NOF, and the Canadian guidelines criteria, respectively. Of the tests performed, 40.7% would be deemed as appropriate, whereas 10.7% would be considered inappropriate. CONCLUSIONS: The impact on the population of the different recommendations is enormous, varying from 17% to 80% of the population over 50 who would be tested. Although in men it seems that a clinical rationale exists between the presence of risk factors and the rates of BMD testing, this pattern does not seem to exist in women. One in 10 of the densitometric tests performed were inappropriate according to all the guidelines.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".