MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2594041682 · doi:10.1097/mlr.0000000000000718

Racial Differences and Disparities in Osteoporosis-related Bone Health

2017· article· en· W2594041682 on OpenAlexaff
Peter Cram, Kenneth G. Saag, Yiyue Lou, Stephanie W. Edmonds, Sylvie F. Hall, Douglas W. Roblin, Nicole C. Wright, Fredric D. Wolinsky

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Care · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and osteoporosis research
Canadian institutionsSinai Health SystemUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Institute on AgingNational Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin DiseasesAgency for Healthcare Research and Quality
KeywordsMedicineOsteoporosisGuidelinePhysical therapyHealth careHealth equityBone healthGerontologyFamily medicineInternal medicineBone mineralPublic health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Determining whether observed differences in health care can be called disparities requires persistence of differences after adjustment for relevant patient, provider, and health system factors. We examined whether providing dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) test results directly to patients might reduce or eliminate racial differences in osteoporosis-related health care. DESIGN, SUBJECTS, AND MEASURES: We analyzed data from 3484 white and 1041 black women who underwent DXA testing at 2 health systems participating in the Patient Activation after DXA Result Notification (PAADRN) pragmatic clinical trial (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT-01507662) between February 2012 and August 2014. We examined 7 outcomes related to bone health at 12 weeks and 52 weeks post-DXA: (1) whether the patient correctly identified their DXA baseline results; (2) whether the patient was on guideline-concordant osteoporosis pharmacotherapy; (3) osteoporosis-related satisfaction; (4) osteoporosis knowledge; (5 and 6) osteoporosis self-efficacy for exercise and for diet; and (7) patient activation. We examined whether unadjusted differences in outcomes between whites and blacks persisted after adjusting for patient, provider, and health system factors. RESULTS: Mean age was 66.5 years and 29% were black. At baseline black women had less education, poorer health status, and were less likely to report a history of osteoporosis (P<0.001 for all). In unadjusted analyses black women were less likely to correctly identify their actual DXA results, more likely to be on guideline-concordant therapy, and had similar patient activation. After adjustment for patient demographics, baseline health status and other factors, black women were still less likely to know their actual DXA result and less likely to be on guideline-concordant therapy, but black women had greater patient activation. CONCLUSIONS: Adjustment for patient and provider level factors can change how racial differences are viewed, unmasking new disparities, and providing explanations for others.

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)0.001
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 score0.155
Threshold uncertainty score0.664

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.339 · 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

Citations12
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical CareSame topicBone health and osteoporosis researchFrench-language works237,207