MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2302024403

Compliance with treatment in osteoporosis patients--an ongoing problem.

2006· article· en· W2302024403 on OpenAlexaff
Philip N. Sambrook

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and osteoporosis research
Canadian institutionsAlberta Bone and Joint Health Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOsteoporosisDosingCompliance (psychology)Drug holidayBisphosphonateRegimenIntensive care medicinePatient compliancePharmacotherapyEtidronic acidClinical trialPhysical therapyPersistence (discontinuity)Internal medicineEmergency medicineFamily medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Osteoporosis is a chronic condition that generally requires long term therapy with agents such as bisphosphonates, selective oestrogen receptor modulators, or hormone therapy for fracture risk reduction to be apparent. However, compliance with therapy in the 'real world' setting has generally been less than that seen in clinical trials. OBJECTIVE: This article reviews the trends of compliance and persistence with bisphosphonate therapy in patients with osteoporosis in the 'real world' setting. DISCUSSION: Studies in Australia and overseas have shown that once weekly administration of bisphosphonates improves compliance with treatment compared with a daily regimen. However, although patients prefer once weekly bisphosphonates over daily treatment, compliance and persistence remained suboptimal in many patients receiving once weekly therapy. The introduction of less frequent dosing regimens such as once monthly or once yearly may increase compliance.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.058
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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.078

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.058
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Citations21
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicBone health and osteoporosis research→French-language works237,207→