Depot Medroxyprogesterone Acetate and Bone Mineral Density
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Previous studies have suggested that depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA) may result in a reduction in bone mineral density (BMD). This study further explores this relationship. This study was undertaken to assess the association between long-term DMPA use and areal BMD (aBMD) in a uniform manner in a single private specialist practice over two decades. Methods: Of 1,046 consecutive patients using DMPA in a single Melbourne specialist’s practice between 1981 and 2013, from 1992 102 were referred for dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scans. Each was matched for age and body mass index with two participants from a reference group of 1,416 healthy female volunteers who underwent DXA scans at the Royal Melbourne Hospital. Results: A total of 306 participants were included in this study, 102 cases and 204 referents. DMPA users had lower aBMD at first testing (median duration of DMPA use 4.3 years (IQR 2.6 - 6.7 years) compared with the reference group, and lower aBMD persisted in users 2 - 5 years post cessation of DMPA. These differences from the reference group were statistically and potentially clinically significant. There was no evidence of accelerated bone loss at any site in the DMPA users during longitudinal observations on treatment, but the study had limited power to detect such an effect. Conclusions: DMPA use was associated with aBMD deficits during and after treatment. The findings demonstrate that long-term, controlled, prospective studies with adequate sample size are required to evaluate the potential clinical impact of DMPA use on bone health outcomes. J Clin Gynecol Obstet. 2018;7(3-4):63-68 doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/jcgo519
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".