MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2208791085 · doi:10.1210/jc.2015-3123

Associations of Body Mass Index With Incident Fractures and Hip Structural Parameters in a Large Canadian Cohort

2015· article· en· W2208791085 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Jian Shen, William D. Leslie, Carrie M. Nielson, Sumit R. Majumdar, Suzanne N. Morin, Eric Orwoll

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and osteoporosis research
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Manitoba
FundersNational Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin DiseasesUniversity of Manitoba
KeywordsMedicineBody mass indexBone mineralCross-sectional studyCohortOsteoporosisBone densityHip fractureObesityDemographyInternal medicineCohort studyDual energyDual-energy X-ray absorptiometryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CONTEXT: Fractures in obese individuals are of public health importance, but the relationship between obesity and fracture is complex and remains poorly understood. OBJECTIVE: The study examined the association of body mass index (BMI) with bone structural and strength parameters and incident fracture. DESIGN AND SETTING: We performed cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses using data from the Manitoba Bone Density Program. PARTICIPANTS: We included 51 313 women and 4689 men aged 50 years or older referred for dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry scans. For 41 919 women and 4085 men, we were able to derive hip structural parameters. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Cross-sectional moment of inertia, cross-sectional area, and femoral strength index were derived from dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. Health service records were assessed for incident major osteoporotic fractures (MOFs) (mean follow-up 6.2 y in women and 4.7 y in men). RESULTS: Among individuals with a BMI of less than 30 kg/m(2), increasing BMI was associated with progressive increases in bone mineral density (BMD), cross-sectional moment of inertia, and cross-sectional area. The relationship reached a plateau around a BMI of 30 kg/m(2), with little additional increment with further increases in BMI (all P for interaction < .0001, obese vs nonobese). Increasing BMI was linearly associated with decreases in strength index in both women and men. MOFs were ascertained in 3721 women and 276 men (1027 female and 75 male hip fractures). Higher BMI was associated with a lower risk of MOF in women in multivariable models, but this association was largely explained by their higher BMD. Protective association of higher BMI with hip fracture were stronger and only partially explained by BMD (hazard ratio [95% confidence interval] 0.79 [0.73-0.99] for obese I and 0.67 [0.46-0.98] for obese II). Higher BMI was not significantly associated with a risk of MOF or hip fracture in men. CONCLUSIONS: Despite structural and biomechanical disadvantages, obese women were at lower risk of fracture.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.064
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.360 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations38
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & MetabolismSame topicBone health and osteoporosis researchFrench-language works237,207