MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3047488430 · doi:10.1002/jbm4.10401

Estimating the Effect of Elagolix Treatment for Endometriosis on Postmenopausal Bone Outcomes: A Model Bridging Phase <scp>III</scp> Trials to an Older Real‐World Population

2020· article· en· W3047488430 on OpenAlexaff
Ryan D. Kilpatrick, Stephanie E. Chiuve, William D. Leslie, Lani R. Wegrzyn, Wei Gao, Hongbo Yang, Ahmed M. Soliman, Michael C. Snabes, Sarah H. Koenigsberg, Zhong Jia, Cheryl Xiang, Nelson B. Watts

Bibliographic record

VenueJBMR Plus · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEndometriosis Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersAbbVie
KeywordsMedicinePostmenopausal womenOsteoporosisNational Health and Nutrition Examination SurveyEndometriosisInternal medicinePopulationMenopauseHip fracturePhysical therapyEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Elagolix, a gonadotrophin‐releasing hormone antagonist, is used in premenopausal women with endometriosis. There is a risk of bone loss with elagolix, but the long‐term effects of BMD loss later in life cannot be directly assessed and has not been quantified. To address this gap in knowledge, this study indirectly estimated the impact of elagolix on postmenopausal fracture risk. BMD change in premenopausal women with endometriosis treated with elagolix was modeled from the phase III program data (elagolix group) and used to simulate treatment effects on (fracture risk assessment tool estimated) 10‐year risks of hip and major osteoporotic fracture in women ages 50 to 79 years from the 2005–2010 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES; N = 2303). Change in the proportion of women reaching risk‐based antiosteoporotic treatment thresholds was also estimated. For elagolix versus NHANES, median 10‐year risk of major osteoporotic fracture was 4.73% versus 4.70% in women ages 50 to 59 years, 7.03% versus 6.97% in women ages 60 to 69 years, and 10.83% versus 10.68% in women ages 70 to 79 years. Median 10‐year risk of hip fracture in these same groups was 0.19% versus 0.18% for women ages 50 to 59 years, 0.51% versus 0.49% for women 60 to 69 years, and 2.22% versus 2.14% for women 70 to 79 years. The proportion of women reaching risk‐based antiosteoporotic treatment thresholds caused by elagolix 150 mg daily for 12 months was 0.36% higher at age 50 to 59 years, 0.23% at age 60 to 69 years, and 1.79% at age 70 to 79 years. The number needed to harm was 643 for one additional hip fracture and 454 for one additional major osteoporotic fracture. Results were similar for elagolix 200 mg twice a day for 3 months. In the modeled scenarios, elagolix had minimal impact on long‐term risk of fracture and reaching risk‐based treatment thresholds. © 2020 The Authors. JBMR Plus published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research © 2020 The Authors. JBMR Plus published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.075

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.094
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.339 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations8
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJBMR PlusSame topicEndometriosis Research and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207