[Glucocorticoid and Bone. The changes of Japanese and foreign guidelines for the management of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The American College of Rheumatology (ACR) developed recommendations for the prevention and treatment of glucocorticoid- induced osteoporosis (GIO) in 1996. As the beneficial effects of bisphosphonates on GIO were reported from 1997 to 1999, guidelines for the management of GIO were also published from the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia. In Japan, the Japanese Society for Bone and Mineral Research released guidelines on the management and treatment of GIO in 2005. An approach trying to determine the pharmacological intervention threshold based on assessment of the absolute risk of fractures was initiated in the mid-2000s and FRAX®, a WHO-supported, computer-based, fracture risk assessment was published in 2007. Regarding pharmacological intervention, the efficacy of teriparatide for the treatment of GIO was reported from 2007 to 2009. Based on such new evidence regarding GIO, the ACR recommendation was updated to incorporate FRAX® as an assessment tool for fracture risk in the 2010 revision. The Joint GIO Guidelines Working Group of the International Osteoporosis Foundation and the European Calcified Tissue Society has also published a framework for the development of guidelines for the management of GIO.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".