Influence on the bone mineral density and bone metabolism marker after the interruption and reinitiation of monthly minodronate therapy in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to investigate the influences of interruption and reinitiation of monthly minodronate therapy on the bone mineral density (BMD) and bone metabolism markers in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. METHODS: Study patients were included if they had been administered monthly minodronate therapy for ≥6 months, interrupted the therapy, and reinitiated the therapy for ≥12 months. The BMD and bone metabolism markers were assessed at 4 time points: initiation, interruption, reinitiation and 1 year after reinitiation of therapy. RESULTS: A total of 23 patients were enrolled. The mean monthly minodronate treatment period was 23.8 ± 12.9 months following a mean interruption period of 11.9 ± 5.4 months. Once increased by monthly minodronate treatment for 2 years on average, the BMD of lumbar spine and radius did not significantly decrease even after an interruption for 1 year on average. However, the BMD of the femoral neck did decrease after interruption. The BMD of the lumbar spine and radius increased further after 1 year of monthly minodronate retreatment. The BMD of the femoral neck did not change. Once decreased after the treatment for an average of 2 years followed by an interruption for 1 year, bone metabolism markers increased gradually but did not recover to baseline levels. A potent suppressive effect on bone resorption was noted. The change rate was greater for the bone formation marker procollagen 1 N-terminal propeptide. CONCLUSIONS: Monthly minodronate treatment increases BMD and reduces bone metabolism markers. The effect lessens after treatment interruptions, and can be restored by retreatment.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".