<i>Low Bone Mineral Density</i> in Cystic Fibrosis Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The goals of this practice-based, observational study were to describe the prevalence of low bone mineral density in patients at the Edmonton Cystic Fibrosis Centre, and to determine if body mass index and previous systemic corticosteroid use of over one month's duration were predictors of low bone mineral density. One hundred and thirteen pediatric and adult patients were studied. Bone mineral density of the lumbar spine region was measured using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. A total of 42.5% of patients had a bone mineral density Z-score of less than -1 standard deviation. Low bone mineral density was apparent at nine to 12 years of age, and was most evident in the 20- to 34-year-old group. All but one patient under age 20 with a Z-score of less than -2.5 also had a body mass index below the fifth percentile. A low Z-score was also associated with previous systemic corticosteroid use of over one month's duration (relative risk 1.81, p=0.003). We conclude that low bone mineral density is common in cystic fibrosis patients. Low body mass index percentiles may be used to identify children and adolescents at risk of low bone mineral density. These patients may benefit from aggressive nutrition therapy. Systemic corticosteroid use should be assessed carefully, as it is a risk factor for low bone mineral density.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".