Atypical femur fractures: current understanding and approach to management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Osteoporosis and resulting osteoporotic fractures are responsible for significant morbidity, excess mortality, and health care costs in the developed world. Medical therapy for osteoporosis has been shown in multiple randomized controlled trials to reduce the risk of vertebral and non-vertebral fractures and hip fractures, and in some studies bisphosphonate medications have been associated with improved survival. Although the overall benefit to risk ratio of osteoporosis medications remains favorable, there have been concerns raised about the long-term safety of these treatments. Atypical femur fracture, which is a rare type of fracture that has been associated with the long-term use of potent antiresorptive bone medications, is a potentially devastating consequence of osteoporosis treatment. This paper reviews our current understanding of atypical femur fractures, their relationship to antiresorptive osteoporosis medications, and proposed strategies for management, in order to inform clinical decision making about the optimal use and duration of medical therapy for the treatment of patients with osteoporosis or at high risk for osteoporotic fractures.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".