MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2801825621 · doi:10.1002/jbmr.3455

Dysmobility Syndrome Independently Increases Fracture Risk in the Osteoporotic Fractures in Men (MrOS) Prospective Cohort Study

2018· article· en· W2801825621 on OpenAlexaff
Bjoern Buehring, Karen E. Hansen, Brian Lewis, Steven R. Cummings, Nancy E. Lane, Neil Binkley, Kristine E. Ensrud, Peggy M. Cawthon

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Bone and Mineral Research · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and osteoporosis research
Canadian institutionsOsteoporosis Canada
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesNational Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin DiseasesNational Institute on AgingNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsMedicineFRAXHip fractureConcordanceInternal medicineSarcopeniaOsteoporosisOsteoporotic fractureCohortGrip strengthProspective cohort studyRisk factorBone mineralPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT We proposed the term “dysmobility syndrome” (DS) to identify individuals with impaired musculoskeletal health, a risk factor for falls and fractures. Whether DS is associated with increased risk of incident fracture is unknown. The Osteoporotic Fractures in Men (MrOS) study enrolled 5994 men ages ≥65 years, between March 2000 and April 2002. We used baseline data to determine whether DS increased fracture risk, independent of the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX). Men met DS criteria at baseline if they had three or more of the following: appendicular lean mass/height2 <7.26 kg/m2, total body fat >30%, spine or hip T-score ≤ –2.5, grip strength <30 kg, gait speed <1.0 m/s, and one or more fall within 12 months. We examined whether baseline DS increased the risk of hip and major osteoporotic fractures (MOFs) over a median of 14 years (IQR, 9 to 15 years). Among 5834 men mean age 74 ± 6 years, 471 (8%) had DS and 635 (11%) experienced an MOF, including 274 (5%) hip fractures. Age (per SD increase) conferred an HR of 1.72 (95% CI, 1.59 to 1.86), DS conferred an HR of 3.45 (95% CI, 2.78 to 4.29) and FRAX calculated with BMD (per %) conferred an HR of 1.10 (95% CI, 1.08 to 1.11) for MOF. Prediction of MOF using the FRAX score provided a concordance value of 0.67 ± 0.012 (concordance values are mean ± SE). Concordance increased to 0.69 ± 0.012 by adding DS and to 0.70 ± 0.012 by adding DS and age to the multivariate model. Kaplan-Meier curves indicated that men with both DS and a FRAX risk above the National Osteoporosis Foundation (NOF) treatment thresholds had higher MOF (HR 6.23; 95% CI, 3.10 to 12.54) and hip (HR 7.73; 95% CI, 5.95 to 10.04) fracture risk than men with neither condition. We suggest further studies to determine the optimal criteria for DS, and to test DS as a predictor of falls and fractures, especially in women. © 2018 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.367 · 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

Citations35
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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