Tricyclic Antidepressant Use and Risk of Fractures: A Meta-Analysis of Cohort Studies through the Use of Both Frequentist and Bayesian Approaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Research findings regarding the association between tricyclic antidepressant (TCA) treatment and the risk of fracture are not consistent; we aimed to assess whether people who take TCAs are at an increased fracture risk. METHODS: Relevant studies published through June 2020 were identified through database searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, PsycINFO, ISI Web of Science, WorldCat Dissertations and Theses from each database's inception, as well as through manual searches of relevant reference lists. Two researchers independently performed literature searches, study selection, data abstraction and study appraisal by using a standardized protocol. Frequentist and Bayesian hierarchical random-effects models were used for the analysis. The heterogeneity and publication bias were evaluated in this study. RESULTS: = 0.007) and the Bayesian method (RR, 1.24, 95% Credible Interval (CrI), 1.01-1.56). These results were consistent in multiple sensitivity and subgroup analyses. Significant heterogeneity was observed in the meta-analysis; however, no significant publication bias was detected. CONCLUSION: TCA medication may indicate an increased risk of fracture. TCA should be prescribed with caution in the clinic.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".