VII. Meta-Analysis of Calcium Supplementation for the Prevention of Postmenopausal Osteoporosis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To summarize controlled trials examining the effect of calcium on bone density and fractures in postmenopausal women. DATA SOURCE: We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE up to 1998 and the Cochrane Controlled Register up to 2000, and we examined citations of relevant articles and proceedings of international meetings. We contacted osteoporosis investigators to identify additional studies, and primary authors for unpublished data. STUDY SELECTION: We included 15 trials (1806 patients) that randomized postmenopausal women to calcium supplementation or usual calcium intake in the diet and reported bone mineral density of the total body, vertebral spine, hip, or forearm, or recorded the number of fractures, and followed patients for at least 1 yr. DATA EXTRACTION: For each trial, three independent reviewers assessed the methodological quality and extracted data. DATA SYNTHESIS: We found calcium to be more effective than placebo in reducing rates of bone loss after two or more years of treatment. The pooled difference in percentage change from baseline was 2.05% [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.24-3.86] for total body bone density, 1.66% (95% CI 0.92-2.39) for the lumbar spine, 1.64% (95% CI 0.70-2.57) for the hip, and 1.91% (95% CI 0.33-3.50) for the distal radius. The relative risk (RR) of fractures of the vertebrae was 0.77, with a wide CI (95% CI 0.54-1.09); the RR for nonvertebral fractures was 0.86 (95% CI 0.43-1.72). CONCLUSIONS: Calcium supplementation alone has a small positive effect on bone density. The data show a trend toward reduction in vertebral fractures, but do not meaningfully address the possible effect of calcium on reducing the incidence of nonvertebral fractures.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 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 it