Improving bone health in men with prostate cancer receiving androgen deprivation therapy: Results of a randomized phase 2 trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Strategies to improve bone health care in men receiving androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) are not consistently implemented. The authors conducted a phase 2 randomized controlled trial of 2 education-based models-of-care interventions to determine their feasibility and ability to improve bone health care. METHODS: A single-center parallel-group randomized controlled trial of men with prostate cancer who were receiving ADT was performed. Participants were randomized 1:1:1 to 1) a patient bone health pamphlet and brief recommendations for their family physician (BHP+FP); 2) a BHP and support from a bone health care coordinator (BHP+BHCC); or 3) usual care. The primary efficacy outcome was receipt of a bone mineral density (BMD) test within 6 months. Secondary efficacy outcomes included guideline-appropriate calcium and vitamin D use and bisphosphonate prescriptions for men at high fracture risk. Feasibility endpoints included recruitment, retention, satisfaction, contamination, and outcome capture. The main analysis used logistic regression with a 1-sided P of .10. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier NCT02043236). RESULTS: A total of 119 men were recruited. The BHP+BHCC strategy was associated with a greater percentage of men undergoing a BMD test compared with the usual-care group (78% vs 36%; P<.001). BMD ordering also was found to be increased with the BHP+FP strategy (58% vs 36%; P = .047). Both strategies were associated with higher percentages of patients using calcium and vitamin D, but only the BHP+FP arm was statistically significant (P = .039). No men were detected to be at high fracture risk. All but one feasibility endpoint was met. CONCLUSIONS: Educational strategies to improve bone health care appear feasible and are associated with improved BMD ordering in men receiving ADT. Cancer 2018;124:1132-40. © 2017 American Cancer Society.
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 | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".