MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract P1-13-08: A Cross-Sectional Study Evaluating Bone Quantity and Quality in Women with Bone Metastases from Breast Cancer

2010· article· en· W2323112071 on OpenAlexaff
OC Freedman, Eitan Amir, AM Cheung, Hong Hu, Eun-Young Lee, George Dranitsaris, MJ Clemons

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and treatments
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreRegional Municipality of DurhamOttawa HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBone mineralOsteoporosisBreast cancerBisphosphonateQuantitative computed tomographyInternal medicinePopulationBone remodelingPathologic fractureOncologyBone densityCancerRadiologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Approximately 1/3 of patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) and bone disease will sustain a skeletal related event (SRE) despite use of a bisphosphonate; there is therefore an urgent unmet need in this large population to better assess individual SRE risk and develop more effective bone protective agents. Using novel tools to assess bone quality may help guide individual patient treatment choices as well as future trial design. Materials and Methods: Women with MBC and bone metastases were recruited. Baseline bone assessments were performed using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) [areal bone mineral density (BMD) and vertebral fracture assessment (VFA)], high-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography (HR-pQCT), and serum markers of bone turnover [serum CTX and bone-specific alkaline phosphatase (BAP)]. Risk factors for osteoporosis and fractures were then recorded. Results: 49 baseline assessments were completed. Mean age and body mass index were 53.6 (range 30-80) and 27 (range 17-45) respectively. One in four women had an ECOG 2-3, and 24% had a clinical fracture since the diagnosis of MBC. 94% had estrogen positive disease, 11% were HER2+. 53% had prior radiation therapy to bone; 90% received bisphosphonate therapy. Bone assessments are outlined in the Table. Vertebral compression deformity (VCD) using the novel technique of VFA was most strongly associated with clinical fracture (p = 0.003). Discussion: Prospective evaluation of individual SRE risk will enable improved patient-centred care and allow more rational use of bone targeted therapies. VFA is a novel tool that may better inform treatment decisions and choice of agents in women with MBC. Future follow-up of these patients will help determine the optimal assessment modality. Bone quantity and quality assessments Citation Information: Cancer Res 2010;70(24 Suppl):Abstract nr P1-13-08.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.229
GPT teacher head0.549
Teacher spread0.320 · 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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer Research→Same topicBone health and treatments→French-language works237,207→