Metabolic and Clinical Consequences of Hyperthyroidism on Bone Density
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1891, Von Recklinghausen first established the association between the development of osteoporosis in the presence of overt hyperthyroidism. Subsequent reports have demonstrated that BMD loss is common in frank hyperthyroidism, and, to a lesser extent, in subclinical presentations. With the introduction of antithyroid medication in the 1940s to control biochemical hyperthyroidism, the accompanying bone disease became less clinically apparent as hyperthyroidism was more successfully treated medically. Consequently, the impact of the above normal thyroid hormones in the pathogenesis of osteoporosis may be presently underrecognized due to the widespread effective treatments. This review aims to present the current knowledge of the consequences of hyperthyroidism on bone metabolism. The vast number of recent papers touching on this topic highlights the recognized impact of this common medical condition on bone health. Our focus in this review was to search for answers to the following questions. What is the mechanisms of action of thyroid hormones on bone metabolism? What are the clinical consequences of hyperthyroidism on BMD and fracture risk? What differences are there between men and women with thyroid disease and how does menopause change the clinical outcomes? Lastly, we report how different treatments for hyperthyroidism benefit thyroid hormone-induced osteoporosis.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".