MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3006754541 · doi:10.1210/clinem/dgaa048

Pharmacological Management of Osteoporosis in Postmenopausal Women: An Endocrine Society Guideline Update

2020· article· en· W3006754541 on OpenAlexaff
Dolores Shoback, Clifford J. Rosen, Dennis M. Black, Angela M. Cheung, M. Hassan Murad, Richard Eastell

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and osteoporosis research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
FundersMedical Research CouncilU.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
KeywordsMedicineGuidelineOsteoporosisSclerostinAdverse effectClinical trialPostmenopausal womenEndocrine systemIntensive care medicineInternal medicineGynecologyHormonePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The objective is to provide an update of the 2019 Pharmacological Management of Osteoporosis in Postmenopausal Women: An Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline for the pharmacological management of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women using romosozumab. CONCLUSIONS: We reviewed findings from the meta-analysis and primary clinical trials assessing the efficacy of romosozumab, a monoclonal antibody targeting sclerostin, for the prevention of fractures and concluded that this agent can be considered a treatment option for postmenopausal women at very high risk for osteoporotic fracture. The romosozumab label has a boxed warning, recommending careful consideration by the treating clinician as to cardiovascular risk profile in the individual woman who might receive this agent, since clinical trial data from an active comparator study show an imbalance in serious cardiovascular adverse events between romosozumab and alendronate.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.443
Teacher spread0.359 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations403
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & MetabolismSame topicBone health and osteoporosis researchFrench-language works237,207