MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2736858909 · doi:10.1002/jbmr.3222

Comparative Analysis of the Radiology of Osteoporotic Vertebral Fractures in Women and Men: Cross-Sectional and Longitudinal Observations from the Canadian Multicentre Osteoporosis Study (CaMos)

2017· article· en· W2736858909 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Brian C. Lentle, Claudie Berger, Linda Probyn, Jacques P. Brown, Lisa Langsetmo, Benjamin Fine, Kevin Lian, Arvind Shergill, Jacques Trollip, Stuart Jackson, William D. Leslie, Jerilynn C. Prior, Stéphanie Kaiser, David A. Hanley, Jonathan D. Adachi, Tanveer Towheed, K. Shawn Davison, Angela M. Cheung, David Goltzman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Bone and Mineral Research · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and osteoporosis research
Canadian institutionsPrioris.ai (Canada)Queen's UniversityMcMaster UniversityUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of ManitobaUniversity of AlbertaMuscular Dystrophy CanadaSunnybrook Health Science CentreSt. Michael's HospitalDalhousie UniversityUniversity of TorontoMcGill University Health CentreUniversity Health NetworkHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchQueen's UniversityAmgenMcMaster UniversityUniversity of TorontoDalhousie UniversityUniversité LavalMcGill University
KeywordsMedicineOsteoporosisConfidence intervalIncidence (geometry)Femoral neckBone mineralRadiographyNuclear medicineLumbar spineInternal medicineRadiologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT We compared two methods for osteoporotic vertebral fracture (VF) assessment on lateral spine radiographs, the Genant semiquantitative (GSQ) technique and a modified algorithm-based qualitative (mABQ) approach. We evaluated 4465 women and 1771 men aged ≥50 years from the Canadian Multicentre Osteoporosis Study with available X-ray images at baseline. Observer agreement was lowest for grade 1 VFs determined by GSQ. Among physician readers, agreement was greater for VFs diagnosed by mABQ (ranging from 0.62 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.00–1.00] to 0.88 [0.76–1.00]) than by GSQ (ranging from 0.38 [0.17–0.60] to 0.69 [0.54–0.85]). GSQ VF prevalence (16.4% [95% CI 15.4–17.4]) and incidence (10.2/1000 person-years [9.2; 11.2]) were higher than with the mABQ method (prevalence 6.7% [6.1–7.4] and incidence 6.3/1000 person-years [5.5–7.1]). Women had more prevalent and incident VFs relative to men as defined by mABQ but not as defined by GSQ. Prevalent GSQ VFs were predominantly found in the mid-thoracic spine, whereas prevalent mABQ and incident VFs by both methods co-localized to the junction of the thoracic and lumbar spine. Prevalent mABQ VFs compared with GSQ VFs were more highly associated with reduced adjusted L1 to L4 bone mineral density (BMD) (–0.065 g/cm2 [–0.087 to –0.042]), femoral neck BMD (–0.051 g/cm2 [–0.065 to –0.036]), and total hip BMD (–0.059 g/cm2 [–0.076 to –0.041]). Prevalent mABQ VFs compared with prevalent GSQ were also more highly associated with incident VF by GSQ (odds ratio [OR] = 3.3 [2.2–5.0]), incident VF by mABQ (9.0 [5.3–15.3]), and incident non-vertebral major osteoporotic fractures (1.9 [1.2–3.0]). Grade 1 mABQ VFs, but not grade 1 GSQ VFs, were associated with incident non-vertebral major osteoporotic fractures (OR = 3.0 [1.4–6.5]). We conclude that defining VF by mABQ is preferred to the use of GSQ for clinical assessments. © 2017 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.333
Threshold uncertainty score0.670

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.126
GPT teacher head0.437
Teacher spread0.311 · 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

Citations103
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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