MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2318864111 · doi:10.1055/s-2006-943638

BONE DENSITY INTERPRETATION IN CHILDREN WITH CEREBRAL PALSY

2006· article· en· W2318864111 on OpenAlexaff
Craig Campbell, Leanne M. Ward, P Humphreys, John A. McLean, Mary Ann Matzinger, Lorraine Lawton

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuropediatrics · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCerebral Palsy and Movement Disorders
Canadian institutionsChildren's Hospital of Western Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCerebral palsyDensitometryOrthopedic surgeryFragilityPopulationBone densityFragility fracturePediatricsPhysical therapyOsteoporosisSurgeryBone mineralInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives: Children with CP encounter a number of orthopedic complications as a result of abnormalities in motor function. One of the most significant complications is fragility fractures occurring in up to 23% of children. Despite a growing literature on how to best interpret bone densitometry in children little research has determined how best to use dual x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) in children with CP to predict fragility fracture and other bone complications. This study outlines the use of the mechanostat theory of bone physiology to classify and interpret bone complications in this population. Methods: Single-centre, cross sectional study of 53 subjects with CP age 2–15 years of age. Subjects underwent a baseline interview, examination and evaluation of bone complications including DEXA bone densitometry. DEXA measurements of bone mineral content (BMC) and lean body mass (LBM) were used to determine if subjects had normal bone strength, primary, secondary, or mixed osteopenia. Results: The subjects (51% females) had a mean age of 9 years. Severity of CP ranged across all GMFCS levels and all types of CP were represented in the sample. Normal bone parameters were seen in 24 children, with 11 children classified as primary osteopenia, 5 with secondary osteopenia and 3 with a mixed pattern. Three children had fragility fractures and using this classification the fractures were accurately allocated to the osteopenic groups. In each group there was one child with a fracture. Using z scores for BMC as an outcome variable only one CP specific factor, the GMFCS, was an important predictor variable. The use of anti-convulsants, the type of CP, family history and calcium and vitamin D intake did not contribute to the model. Other orthopaedic complications, and measures of pain or quality of life appear to be unrelated to low BMC. Conclusion: The mechanostat theory of bone density interpretation is a more physiologic way to interpret DEXA measurements. In a sample of children with CP fragility fractures are accurately classified using this technique.

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)0.005
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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuropediatricsSame topicCerebral Palsy and Movement DisordersFrench-language works237,207