A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Study of the Effects of Denosumab for the Treatment of Men with Low Bone Mineral Density
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Men with low bone mineral density (BMD) were treated with denosumab. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to investigate the effects of denosumab compared with placebo in men with low BMD after 1 yr of treatment. DESIGN, SUBJECTS, AND INTERVENTION: This was a placebo-controlled, phase 3 study to investigate the efficacy and safety of denosumab 60 mg every 6 months vs. placebo in men with low BMD. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The primary endpoint was the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine (LS) BMD at month 12. RESULTS: Of the 242 randomized subjects (mean age 65 yr), 228 (94.2%) completed 1 yr of denosumab therapy. After 12 months, denosumab resulted in BMD increases of 5.7% at the LS, 2.4% at the total hip, 2.1% at the femoral neck, 3.1% at the trochanter, and 0.6% at the one third radius (adjusted P ≤ 0.0144 for BMD percent differences at all sites compared with placebo). Sensitivity analyses done by controlling for baseline covariates (such as baseline testosterone levels, BMD T-scores, and 10-yr osteoporotic fracture risk) demonstrated that the results of the primary endpoint were robust. Subgroup analyses indicate that treatment with denosumab was effective across a spectrum of clinical situations. Treatment with denosumab significantly reduced serum CTX levels at d 15 (adjusted P < 0.0001). The incidence of adverse events was similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: One year of denosumab therapy in men with low BMD was well tolerated and resulted in a reduction in bone resorption and significant increases in BMD at all skeletal sites assessed.
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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".