MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2810037432 · doi:10.1002/jbmr.3538

Comparison of Methods for Improving Fracture Risk Assessment in Diabetes: The Manitoba BMD Registry

2018· article· en· W2810037432 on OpenAlexaffabout
William D. Leslie, Helena Johansson, Eugène McCloskey, Nicholas C. Harvey, John А. Kanis, Didier Hans

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Bone and Mineral Research · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and osteoporosis research
Canadian institutionsInstitute of AgingUniversity of Manitoba
FundersVersus ArthritisMedical Research CouncilNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsFRAXMedicineDiabetes mellitusType 2 diabetesInternal medicineFemoral neckTrabecular bone scoreRheumatoid arthritisOsteoporosisPhysical therapyBone densityEndocrinologyBone mineralOsteoporotic fractureQuantitative computed tomography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Type 2 diabetes is a risk factor for fracture independent of FRAX (fracture risk assessment) probability. We directly compared four proposed methods to improve the performance of FRAX for type 2 diabetes by: (1) including the rheumatoid arthritis (RA) input to FRAX; (2) making a trabecular bone score (TBS) adjustment to FRAX; (3) reducing the femoral neck T-score input to FRAX by 0.5 SD; and (4) increasing the age input to FRAX by 10 years. We examined major osteoporotic fractures (MOFs) and hip fractures (HFs) over a mean of 8.3 years observation among 44,543 women and men 40 years of age or older (4136 with diabetes) with baseline lumbar spine and hip DXA from 1999 through 2016. Controlled for unadjusted FRAX probability, diabetes was associated with an increased risk for MOFs and HFs. All four FRAX adjustments attenuated the effect of diabetes, but a residual effect of diabetes was seen on MOF risk after TBS adjustment, and on HF risk after the RA and TBS adjustments. Among those with diabetes, unadjusted FRAX risk underestimated MOF (observed/predicted ratio 1.15; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.28), but this was no longer significant after applying the diabetes adjustments. HF risk was more severely underestimated (observed/predicted ratio 1.85; 95% CI, 1.51 to 2.20) and was only partially corrected with the diabetes adjustments (still significant for the RA and TBS adjustments). Among those with diabetes, there was moderate reclassification based upon a fixed MOF cut-off of 20% (4.1% to 7.1%) or fixed HF cut-off of 3% (5.7% to 16.5%). Net reclassification improvement increased for MOF with each of the diabetes adjustments (range 3.9% to 5.6% in the diabetes subgroup). In conclusion, each of the proposed methods for addressing limitations in the ability of FRAX to assess fracture risk in individuals with diabetes was found to improve performance, though no single method was optimal in all settings. © 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)0.061
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.076
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 score0.360
Threshold uncertainty score0.716

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0610.076
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.132
GPT teacher head0.548
Teacher spread0.416 · 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

Citations174
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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