A Canadian survey on the management of corticosteroid induced osteoporosis by rheumatologists.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To survey the practice pattern of Canadian rheumatologists (CR) on their management of corticosteroid induced osteoporosis in their premenopausal (PrM) and postmenopausal (PoM) female patients. METHODS: The practice pattern was surveyed using a 17 item questionnaire probing the diagnosis, prevention, treatment, and monitoring of osteoporosis in PrM and PoM women receiving longterm oral systemic corticosteroid therapy. RESULTS: Most CR investigated and treated osteoporosis themselves, 13% referred to other specialists for investigation, and 22% referred for treatment. Eighty-two percent of CR used dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) to confirm a diagnosis of osteoporosis. Most CR initiated investigation for osteoporosis at the start or within the first year of starting longterm systemic corticosteroid therapy: PrM 87% and PoM 93%. The most frequently used initial strategy for the prevention of osteoporosis was as follows. PrM: calcium and vitamin D3 (53%); PoM: hormone replacement therapy (HRT) and calcium (29%). The most common initial choice for treatment of established osteoporosis was as follows: PrM: etidronate (53%); PoM: bisphosphonates +/- HRT (53%). Ninety-six percent of CR used only bone mineral density (BMD) measurement to monitor therapy for corticosteroid induced osteoporosis. Most CR monitored BMD every 12 to 24 months for PrM (81%) and PoM (84%). The BMD parameter(s) (T and Z scores as measured by DEXA) used to initiate therapy for corticosteroid induced osteoporosis was variable. CONCLUSION: It appears that, while certain trends are evident, there is still considerable variability in the management of corticosteroid induced osteoporosis.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".