MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2257741091 · doi:10.1210/jc.2015-4181

Differential Effects of Teriparatide and Denosumab on Intact PTH and Bone Formation Indices: AVA Osteoporosis Study

2016· article· en· W2257741091 on OpenAlexaffabout
David W. Dempster, Hua Zhou, Robert R. Recker, Jacques P. Brown, Christopher Recknor, E. Michael Lewiecki, Paul D. Miller, Sudhaker D. Rao, David L. Kendler, R. Lindsay, John H. Krege, Jahangir Alam, Kathleen A. Taylor, Boris Janos, Valerie A. Ruff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and treatments
Canadian institutionsEli Lilly (Canada)University of British ColumbiaUniversité Laval
FundersNational Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases
KeywordsTeriparatideDenosumabMedicineInternal medicineEndocrinologyOsteoporosisN-terminal telopeptideBone remodelingContext (archaeology)Cancellous boneType I collagenUrologyBone mineralOsteocalcinChemistrySurgeryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Context: Denosumab-induced PTH elevation may stimulate early bone formation. Objective: Our objective was to evaluate whether denosumab-induced changes of intact PTH (iPTH) result in early anabolic effects according to histomorphometry and bone turnover markers (BTMs) compared with teriparatide, an established anabolic agent. Design: This open-label, randomized study used quadruple labeling to label bone before/after treatment, with a transiliac bone biopsy at 3 months. Setting: This study took both in both US and Canadian sites. Participants: Sixty-nine postmenopausal women with osteoporosis were included. Interventions: Teriparatide (20 μg/day) for 6 months and denosumab (60 mg once) were used in this study. Main Outcome Measure: Between-treatment comparison of change from baseline to month 3 in cancellous mineralizing surface/bone surface, histomorphometric indices in four bone envelopes, and BTM and iPTH at baseline, 1, 3, and 6 months was undertaken. Results: After denosumab, iPTH peaked at month 1 (P < .001), then declined, remaining above baseline through month 6 (P ≤ .01); after teriparatide, iPTH declined at all time points (P < .001). From baseline to month 3, cancellous mineralizing surface/bone surface increased with teriparatide and decreased with denosumab and at month 3, was higher with teriparatide. Similar results were observed in other bone envelopes. BTMs increased from baseline in teriparatide-treated subjects (procollagen type 1 N-terminal propeptide at month 1 and carboxyterminal cross-linking telopeptide of type 1 collagen at month 3); procollagen type 1 N-terminal propeptide and carboxyterminal cross-linking telopeptide of type 1 collagen decreased from baseline at all time points in denosumab-treated subjects. Conclusions: Denosumab treatment increased iPTH but inhibited bone formation indices. In contrast, teriparatide treatment decreased iPTH but stimulated bone formation indices. These findings are not consistent with the hypothesis of early indirect anabolic effect with denosumab.

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.338 · 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

Citations65
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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