Assessing adherence to teriparatide therapy, causes of nonadherence and effect of adherence on bone mineral density measurements in osteoporotic patients at high risk for fracture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine (a) adherence rates at 6, 9 and 18 months amongst patients receiving teriparatide treatment for severe osteoporosis and (b) causes of therapy discontinuation and the effect of teriparatide on bone mineral density (BMD) in adherent and nonadherent patients at different time intervals. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of 111 patients receiving teriparatide from September 2004 to June 2007 was performed. Patients self-reports were used to record adherence and causes of nonadherence at 6, 9 and 18 months. BMDs for all patients were measured using the same DXA scanner at baseline and follow up. RESULTS: Of 111 participants, 17 were male (mean age 60 years) and 94 were female (mean age 69 years). Of these, 12 did not initiate therapy and 4 were lost to follow up. Reported adherence was 89.6% at 6 months, 87.6% at 9 months and 74.7% at 18 months. Causes of nonadherence included cost (n = 4), no benefit (n = 1) and adverse events (n = 8). Common adverse events were leg cramps (n = 9), headache (n = 5) and myalgia (n = 4). Mean spine and femur BMD changes were 3.30% and 0.67% at 4-9 months respectively, and 5.39% and 0.77% at 10-18 months respectively. CONCLUSION: Adherence to teriparatide was almost 90% at 9 months and decreased to 75% at 18 months. Adverse events led to nonadherence in 20% of patients. Those who were nonadherent had lower baseline BMD values than those who were adherent. Changes in BMD at the lumbar spine were greater than changes observed at the femoral neck.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".