MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2566330303 · doi:10.1002/jbmr.3035

Objectively-Verified Parental Non-Hip Major Osteoporotic Fractures and Offspring Osteoporotic Fracture Risk: A Population-Based Familial Linkage Study

2016· article· en· W2566330303 on OpenAlexaffabout
Shuman Yang, William D. Leslie, Randy Walld, Leslíe L. Roos, Suzanne N. Morin, Sumit R. Majumdar, Lisa M. Lix

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Bone and Mineral Research · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and osteoporosis research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaMcGill UniversityUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOffspringMedicineHazard ratioHip fracturePopulationProportional hazards modelConfidence intervalInternal medicineOsteoporosisDemographyPregnancyBiologyGeneticsEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Parental hip fracture (HF) is associated with increased risk of offspring major osteoporotic fractures (MOFs; comprising hip, forearm, clinical spine or humerus fracture). Whether other sites of parental fracture should be used for fracture risk assessment is uncertain. The current study tested the association between objectively-verified parental non-hip MOF and offspring incident MOF. Using population-based administrative healthcare data for the province of Manitoba, Canada, we identified 255,512 offspring with linkage to at least one parent (238,054 mothers and 209,423 fathers). Parental non-hip MOF (1984–2014) and offspring MOF (1997–2014) were ascertained with validated case definitions. Time-dependent multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to estimate adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). During a median of 12 years of offspring follow-up, we identified 7045 incident MOF among offspring (3.7% and 2.5% for offspring with and without a parental non-hip MOF, p < 0.001). Maternal non-hip MOF (HR 1.27; 95% CI, 1.19 to 1.35), paternal non-hip MOF (HR 1.33; 95% CI, 1.20 to 1.48), and any parental non-hip MOF (HR 1.28; 95% CI, 1.21 to 1.36) were significantly associated with offspring MOF after adjusting for covariates. The risk of MOF was even greater for offspring with both maternal and paternal non-hip MOF (adjusted HR 1.61; 95% CI, 1.27 to 2.02). All HRs were similar for male and female offspring (all pinteraction >0.1). Risks associated with parental HF only (adjusted HR 1.26; 95% CI, 1.13 to 1.40) and non-hip MOF only (adjusted HR 1.26; 95% CI, 1.18 to 1.34) were the same. The strength of association between any parental non-hip MOF and offspring MOF decreased with older parental age at non-hip MOF (ptrend = 0.028). In summary, parental non-hip MOF confers an increased risk for offspring MOF, but the strength of the relationship decreases with older parental age at fracture. © 2016 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research. Abstract The current study tested the effect of parental major osteoporotic fractures (MOF) on offspring MOF risk in 238,054 mothers, fathers 209,423 and 255,512 offspring using population-based administrative data linkage. There was an independent association between parental non-hip MOF and offspring MOF, but this relationship decreased with older parental age at the first fracture. Risks associated with parental hip and non-hip MOF were the same. We also demonstrated dose-response in terms of the number of parents with non-hip MOF, number of parental MOF, and presence of both parental hip and non-hip MOF in combination.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.190
Threshold uncertainty score0.378

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.338 · 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

Citations13
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Bone and Mineral ResearchSame topicBone health and osteoporosis researchFrench-language works237,207