A population-based study of the risk of osteoporosis and fracture with dutasteride and finasteride
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Dutasteride is a potent inhibitor of 5-alpha reductase enzymes that reduces concentrations of dihydrotestosterone to a greater extent than finasteride. Whether this has adverse implications for bone health is unknown. We compared the risk of osteoporosis and fractures in older men treated with dutasteride or finasteride. METHODS: We conducted a population-based retrospective cohort study with high-dimensional propensity score matching of Ontario men aged 66 years or older who started treatment with dutasteride or finasteride between January 1, 2006 and December 31, 2012. The primary outcome was a diagnosis of osteoporosis within 2 years of treatment initiation. A secondary outcome was osteoporotic or fragility fractures. RESULTS: We studied 31,615 men treated with dutasteride and an equal number of men treated with finasteride. Dutasteride-treated patients had a lower incidence of osteoporosis than those receiving finasteride [2.2 versus 2.6 per 100 person years; hazard ratio (HR) 0.82; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72 to 0.93]. This effect was no longer statistically significant following adjustment for specialty of prescribing physician (HR 0.90; 95% CI 0.78 to 1.02)]. There was no differential risk of fractures with dutasteride (HR 1.04; 95% 0.86 to 1.25). CONCLUSIONS: Despite differential effects on 5-alpha reductase, dutasteride is not associated with an increased risk of osteoporosis or fractures in older men relative to finasteride. These findings suggest that dutasteride does not adversely affect bone health.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".