Effect of hypercortisolism on bone mineral density and bone metabolism: A potential protective effect of adrenocorticotropic hormone in patients with Cushing’s disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To investigate the effects of Cushing's disease (CD) and adrenal-dependent Cushing's syndrome (ACS) on bone mineral density (BMD) and bone metabolism. Methods Data were retrospectively collected for 55 patients with hypercortisolism (CD, n = 34; ACS n = 21) from January 1997 to June 2014. BMD was examined in all patients, and bone turnover markers were tested in some patients. Healthy controls (n = 18) were also recruited. Results The lumbar spine and femoral neck BMD were significantly lower in the ACS and CD groups than in the control group. Lumbar BMD was significantly lower in the ACS than CD group. The collagen breakdown product (CTX) concentrations were significantly higher while the osteocalcin and procollagen type I N-terminal propeptide (PINP) concentrations were significantly lower in the ACS and CD groups than in the control group. The PINP concentration was significantly lower while the CTX concentration was significantly higher in the ACS than CD group. In the CD group only, lumbar BMD and serum adrenocorticotropic hormone had a significant positive correlation. Conclusions Bone turnover markers indicated suppressed osteoblast and enhanced osteoclast activities. PINP and CTX changes might indicate bone mass deterioration. Adrenocorticotropic hormone might be protective for lumbar BMD in patients with CD.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".