MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2465478039 · doi:10.4103/0972-2327.173409

Osteoporosis in patients with stroke: A cross-sectional study

2016· article· en· W2465478039 on OpenAlexaff
Dušica Simić-Panić, Snežana Tomašević-Todorović, Aleksandar Knežević, Čila Demeši-Drljan, D Marić, Fahad Hanna

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Indian Academy of Neurology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and osteoporosis research
Canadian institutionsPediatric Oncology Group
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOsteoporosisStroke (engine)Cross-sectional studyPhysical therapyInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stroke-related impairments and inactivity contribute to the accelerated development of bone mass removal. However, the extent of decrease in bone mineral density (BMD) after stroke and all factors that influence such rapid bone loss are still not sufficiently explored. The purpose of this study was to determine the extent of BMD reduction in patients after stroke and to identify risk factors for osteoporosis. This research was designed as a cross-sectional study that included patients after a first stroke (≤1.5 years from a stroke; N = 40), who went through in-hospital rehabilitation treatment. Data were gathered by the means of anamnesis and available medical documentation. For statistical analysis, we used the statistical program International Business Machines (IBM) Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) Statistics 22.0. Results were presented using standard statistical measures of central tendency and range of results. To determine the difference between variables, T-test for independent samples was used. Our study provides additional evidence that the reduction in BMD is one of the major complications of a stroke. Given that the incidence of fractures in this population is large, there is a need to perform routine DXA examinations.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.354

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.324 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations8
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of Indian Academy of NeurologySame topicBone health and osteoporosis researchFrench-language works237,207