MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

A combined screening approach of Fracture (Fx) Risk Algorithm (FRAX) and Trabecular Bone Score (TBS) to identify osteoporotic-range fracture risk (ORFR) in breast cancer (BC) patients treated with adjuvant aromatase inhibitor (AI).

2015· article· en· W2921010571 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
David B. Page, Veronica Mariotti, Oksana Davydov, Sujata Patil, Didier Hans, Clifford A. Hudis, Azeez Farooki, Monica Fornier

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFRAXMedicineOsteoporosisBone mineralTrabecular bone scoreInternal medicineBreast cancerCancerOsteoporotic fractureQuantitative computed tomography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

574 Background: The NCCN recommends serial bone mineral density (BMD) measurement with dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) to diagnose and treat AI-associated osteoporosis. The FRAX algorithm identifies additional patients with ORFR who may benefit from anti-resorptive therapy (ART). The TBS, which measures bone microstructure by DXA, is an independent indicator of ORFR. Here, we retrospectively evaluate the utility of a combined screening approach (BMD+FRAX+TBS) in identifying ORFR at baseline and following AI. Methods: Breast cancer patients > 60 years, treated with AI and no ART between 2006-12, who had serial DXA at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center were identified (n= 74). BMD, FRAX, and TBS were evaluated at baseline (< 3 months from AI initiation) and at 12-24 months, and various screening strategies for identifying ORFR were assessed. Based on National Osteoporosis Foundation criteria and Manitoba TBS study fracture rates, ORFR was defined as: BMD T-score≤-2.5; ≥3% hip or ≥20% osteoporosis-associated 10-year fracture risk by FRAX; or TBS score≤1.2 with BMD T-score< -1.0. Results: Following AI, lumbar spine (LS)-BMD declined in 75% of patients (median: -2.9%; SD: 4.3%) and TBS declined in 58% of patients (median: -1.0%, SD: 7.7%). Declines in LS-BMD and TBS were not correlated (Spearman r=-.16, p=NS) and were not influenced by age, BMI, ethnicity, or chemotherapy (by Wilcoxon rank-sum). Compared to BMD alone, a combined screening approach (BMD+FRAX+TBS) identified an additional 15% of patients with ORFR at baseline. (table) Following AI, an additional 2% developed ORFR by BMD alone, versus 7% by BMD+FRAX+TBS. Conclusions: AIs caused bone loss, leading to ORFR as measured by BMD, FRAX, and TBS. Because FRAX and TBS are derived from DXA and patient history, a combined screening approach may efficiently and cost-effectively identify additional BC patients with ORFR who may benefit from ART. Screening Method Pts with ORFR (%) Before AI After AI BMD alone 3/74 (5%) 5/74 (7%) BMD+FRAX 7/74 (9%) 11/74 (15%) BMD+TBS 12/74 (16%) 16/74 (22%) BMD+FRAX+TBS 15/74 (20%) 20/74 (27%)

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.352 · 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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicBone health and treatments→French-language works237,207→