Goal-Directed Treatment for Osteoporosis: A Progress Report From the ASBMR-NOF Working Group on Goal-Directed Treatment for Osteoporosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT The American Society for Bone and Mineral Research and the United States National Osteoporosis Foundation (NOF) formed a working group to develop principles of goal-directed treatment and identify gaps that need to be filled to implement this approach. With goal-directed treatment, a treatment goal would first be established and choice of treatment determined by the probability of achieving that goal. Goals of treatment would be freedom from fracture, a T-score > –2.5, which is above the NOF threshold for initiating treatment, or achievement of an estimated risk level below the threshold for initiating treatment. Progress toward reaching the patient's goal would be periodically and systematically assessed by estimating the patient's compliance with treatment, reviewing fracture history, repeating vertebral imaging when indicated, and repeating measurement of bone mineral density (BMD). Using these data, a decision would be made to stop, continue, or change therapy. Some of these approaches can now be applied to clinical practice. However, the application of goal-directed treatment cannot be fully achieved until medications are available that provide greater increases in BMD and greater reduction in fracture risk than those that are currently approved; only then can patients with very high fracture risk and very low BMD achieve such goals. Furthermore, assessing future fracture risk in patients on treatment requires a new assessment tool that accurately captures the change in fracture risk associated with treatment and should also be sensitive to the importance of recent fractures as predictors of imminent fracture risk. Lastly, evidence is needed to confirm that selecting and switching treatments to achieve goals reduces fracture risk more effectively than current standard care. © 2016 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research. Abstract The fundamental principle of treat-to-goal for osteoporosis is that treatment should be selected according to having a high likelihood of achieving an acceptable level of fracture risk. This is different than but complementary to the current paradigm of monitoring for response to therapy, usually with bone density testing by DXA or bone turnover markers. A patient may respond to therapy yet continue to have an unacceptably high fracture risk. Response to treatment is essential but not necessarily sufficient in achieving an acceptable level of fracture risk.
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 | 0.038 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".