MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Low Bone Mass in Thalassemia: The Thalassemia Clinical Research Network (TCRN) Experience.

2004· article· en· W2557724490 on OpenAlexaff
Maria G. Vogiatzi, Joseph M. Lane, Martin Fleisher, Eric A. Macklin, Ellen B. Fung, Melanie Kirby, Janet L. Kwiatkowski, Ingrid A. Holm, Nancy F. Olivieri, Elliott Vichinsky, Patricia J. Giardina

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHemoglobinopathies and Related Disorders
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineThalassemiaInternal medicineBone mineralGastroenterologyBone painOsteoporosisAnemiaBone densityPediatrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Low bone mass is emerging as a frequent and debilitating morbidity in Thalassemia (thal). The TCRN conducted a cross-sectional observational study to determine the prevalence and factors contributing to bone disease among North American thal patients (pts). Spinal (L1-L4) Bone Mineral Density (BMD) Z- and T-score measurements by DXA (Hologic 4500 and Delphi models) were read centrally. Each subject’s weight, height, hematologic, endocrine and genetic parameters, iron chelation and transfusion regimens, dietary calcium intake, history of fractures and bone pain, self-reported physical activity and bone turnover markers were assessed. BMD was measured in 302 pts: 207 Thal Major (TM), 37 Thal Intermedia (TI), 35 Beta E, 7 Hemoglobin H disease (HbH), 2 homozygous alpha (α) and 14 HbH/Constant Spring (HbH/CS). Among all diagnostic groups, the prevalence of low bone mass (LBM; Z/T <-2), reduced bone mass (RBM; Z/T -2 to -1) and normal bone mass (NBM; Z/T >-1) was 52%, 27% and 21%, respectively. LBM prevalence was 55% in TM, 53% in TI, 51% in Beta E, 0% in HbH, 50% in α and 43% in HbH/CS. RBM prevalence was 26% in TM, 22% in TI, 31% in Beta E, 71% in HbH, 50% in α and 29% in HbH/CS. Pt groups aged: 6–11 yrs, 11–20 yrs, 20+ yrs had Z/T-scores mean±SD[n] were: −1.32±0.82[51], −1.73±1.08[77] and −2.43±1.14[174], respectively. Z/T-scores were significantly lower among older pts (p<.001) and significantly higher among heavier pts after controlling for Tanner stage. Mean age-adjusted Z/T-scores of thal diagnostic groups and their slopes vs. age did not differ significantly although the samples of some groups were small. Among TM and TI pts, those with genotype β°/β° tended to have lower age- and weight-adjusted Z/T-scores (mean [95% CI]: −2.25 [−2.65 to −1.86], n=39). Less than 1% had hypoparathyroidism, 4% vit D deficiency, 8.5% diabetes mellitus, 8.5% hypothyroidism and 11.5% growth hormone deficiency (GHD). Only GHD was significantly correlated with decreased Z/T-scores after controlling for age and diagnosis. Urinary N-telopeptide (NTx) is elevated across all three age groups (median[IQR] mM BCE/mM creatinine: 664[456–930], 302[90–624], 69[34–124]), respectively. Preliminary analysis of bone turnover markers in a subset of subjects (n=114) suggests that NTx, urinary or serum was a significant independent predictor of spine Z/T-scores controlled for age and age-adjusted weight. There was no relationship between Z/T-score and serum osteocalcin. This large and comprehensive study of thal bone disease has demonstrated that decreased bone mass occurs with high frequency, worsens with age, is affected by weight and GHD and is associated with elevated NTx, i.e. increased bone resorption. Future studies are needed to identify efficacious long-term therapies to improve thal bone disease.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.323 · 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
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood→Same topicHemoglobinopathies and Related Disorders→French-language works237,207→