Meta-Analyses of Therapies for Postmenopausal Osteoporosis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The availability of new therapeutic agents has made clinical decision-making in osteoporosis more complex. Because individual clinicians cannot systematically collect and assimilate all the evidence bearing on the efficacy of osteoporosis therapies, they require summaries for evidence-based decision-making. Systematic reviews using rigorous methods provide an unbiased, comprehensive summary of the available evidence, and meta-analysis provides the most precise possible estimate of the treatment effect. The articles in this series represent systematic reviews of a number of osteoporosis therapies: calcium and vitamin D, the bisphosphonates alendronate and risedronate, hormone replacement therapy, raloxifene, and calcitonin. We used state-of-the-art methodology to provide the most clear and accurate characterization of the effectiveness of these therapies. These include explicit eligibility criteria; a comprehensive search; validity assessment that focused on concealment of randomization, blinding, and completeness of follow-up; and sophisticated analytic methods. In addition, two or more reviewers made independent, reproducible decisions regarding study inclusion and assessments of study validity. Only alendronate and risedronate reduced the risk of both nonvertebral and vertebral fractures. Other agents that reduced vertebral fracture included raloxifene, etidronate, vitamin D, and calcitonin. Clinicians should consider these results when selecting antiosteoporosis therapies for postmenopausal women. (Endocrine
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 it