MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2792726429 · doi:10.1002/jbmr.3347

Lower Bone Density, Impaired Microarchitecture, and Strength Predict Future Fragility Fracture in Postmenopausal Women: 5-Year Follow-up of the Calgary CaMos Cohort

2018· article· en· W2792726429 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Lauren A. Burt, Sarah L. Manske, David A. Hanley, Steven K. Boyd

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Bone and Mineral Research · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and osteoporosis research
Canadian institutionsAlberta Bone and Joint Health InstituteUniversity of Calgary
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineBone mineralQuantitative computed tomographyFragilityOdds ratioBone densityProspective cohort studyOsteoporosisCohortInternal medicineCortical boneTibiaSurgeryAnatomyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this prospective study was to use high-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography (HR-pQCT) to determine if baseline skeletal parameters can predict incident fragility fracture in women and, secondly, to establish if women that fracture lose bone at a faster rate than those who do not fracture. Women older than 60 years who experienced a fragility fracture during the 5-year follow-up period (incident fracture group, n = 22) were compared with those who did not experience a fragility fracture during the study (n = 127). After image registration between baseline and follow-up measures, standard and cortical morphological analyses were conducted. Odds ratios were calculated for baseline values and annualized percent change of HR-pQCT and finite element variables. At the radius, baseline HR-pQCT results show women who fractured had lower total bone mineral density (Tt.BMD; 19%), trabecular bone mineral density (Tb.BMD; 25%), and trabecular number (Tb.N; 14%), with higher trabecular separation (Tb.Sp; 19%) than women who did not fracture. At the tibia, women with incident fracture had lower Tt.BMD (15%), Tb.BMD (12%), cortical thickness (Ct.Th; 14%), cortical area (Ct.Ar; 12%), and failure load (10%) with higher total area (Tt.Ar; 7%) and trabecular area (Tb.Ar; 10%) than women who did not fracture. Odds ratios (ORs) at the radius revealed every SD decrease of Tt.BMD (OR = 2.1), Tb.BMD (OR = 2.0), and Tb.N (OR = 1.7) was associated with a significantly increased likelihood of fragility fracture. At the tibia, every SD decrease in Tt.BMD (OR = 2.1), Tb.BMD (OR = 1.7), Ct.Th (OR = 2.2), Ct.Ar (OR = 1.9), and failure load (OR = 1.7) were associated with a significantly increased likelihood of fragility fracture. Irrespective of scanning modality, the annualized percent rate of bone loss was not different between fracture groups. The results suggest baseline bone density, microarchitecture, and strength rather than change in these variables are associated with incident fragility fractures in women older than 60 years. Furthermore, irrespective of fragility fracture status, women experienced changes in skeletal health at a similar rate. © 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.108

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.301 · 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

Citations59
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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