Evaluation of the Implementation of Guidelines on the Treatment of Osteoporosis in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess whether the 2003 and 2014 French guidelines on the prevention and treatment of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (GIOP) and the 2012 update of the French guidelines for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis (PMOP) were applied in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study of 776 patients with RA (19 centers). We collected the data required for the application of the various recommendations (age, sex, prednisone intake, low-energy fracture, history in the immediate family of hip fractures, and bone densitometry), anti-osteoporotic drugs, and the various factors that may be associated with the application of the recommendations. RESULTS: Of the patients who should have received antiosteoporosis treatment, there were 22.6% actually treated (according to the 2014 guidelines), 27.3% actually treated according to the 2003 guidelines, and of postmenopausal women, 23.6% (according to the 2012 PMOP guidelines). Applying the 2014 GIOP guidelines increased the theoretical number of patients requiring treatment relative to the 2003 GIOP guidelines (77% vs 53%; p < 0.001). In multivariate analysis, being treated was associated with a spinal T score ≤ -2 SD according to the 2014 guidelines; with not taking part in physical activity for more than 30 min a day according to the 2003 guidelines; and with older age, lower body mass index, and a T score ≤ -2.5 SD in at least 1 site according to the PMOP guidelines. CONCLUSION: Patients with RA had inadequate prevention of GIOP and PMOP. The management of osteoporosis needs to be improved in this population.
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 | 0.010 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".