Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To determine rates of screening for osteoporosis among men older than 65 years and to find out whether family physicians are following the recommendations of the Osteoporosis Society of Canada’s 2002 Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Osteoporosis in Canada. DESIGN Chart audit. SETTING The Family Medicine Centre at Hotel Dieu Hospital in Kingston, Ont. PARTICIPANTS All male patients at the Family Medicine Centre older than 65 years for a total of 565 patients associated with 20 different physicians’ practices. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Rates of screening with bone mineral density (BMD) scans for osteoporosis, results of BMD testing, and associations between results of BMD testing and age. RESULTS Of the 565 patients reviewed, 108 (19.1% of the study population) had received BMD testing. Rates of screening ranged from 0% to 38% in the 20 practices. Among 105 patients tested (reports for 3 patients were not retrievable), 15 (14.3%) were found to have osteoporosis, 43 (41.0%) to have osteopenia, and 47 (44.8%) to have normal BMD results. No significant association was found between BMD results and age. Screening rates were higher among men older than 75 years than among men aged 65 to 75 and peaked among those 85 to 89 years old. CONCLUSION On average, only about 20% of male patients older than 65 years had been screened for osteoporosis, so most of these men were not being screened by BMD testing as recommended in the guidelines. Considering the relatively high rates of osteoporosis and osteopenia found in this study and the known morbidity and mortality associated with osteoporotic fractures in this population, higher rates of BMD screening and more widespread treatment of osteoporosis could prevent many fractures among these patients. Family physicians need to become more aware of the risk factors indicating screening, and barriers to screening and treatment of osteoporosis in men need to be identified and addressed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".