Is ankle fracture related to low bone mineral density and subsequent fracture? A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Ankle fractures are common in the elderly. However, their association with osteoporosis remains controversial. This systematic review aims to determine the relationship between ankle fracture and bone mineral density (BMD), and to investigate the risk of subsequent fractures after ankle fracture. METHODS: MEDLINE and Scopus publications were searched from inception to March and April 2019, respectively. Articles were selected by 2 independent reviewers for cross-sectional, cohort, or case-control studies comparing BMD or subsequent fracture risk in low-energy ankle fractures patients with that of the normal population. Data extraction was performed by 2 investigators. Discrepancies were resolved with the third reviewer. Quality assessment was conducted using the modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: Overall, 19 articles were included. The quality assessment showed a generally low-to-moderate risk of bias among studies, mainly due to potential confounders and inadequate follow-up. Of 13 studies exploring BMD in ankle fractured-patients, lower central and peripheral BMD was found in 3 and 2 studies, respectively. The risk of subsequent fracture was examined in 11 studies with relative risks ranging from 0.7 to 4.59. An increased risk of any subsequent fractures in women, both genders, and men was found in 5, 2, and 1 articles, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the lack of clear association with BMD, the contribution of ankle fracture to increased subsequent fracture risk and its associated microarchitectural changes cannot be overlooked. Moreover, its potential role as an early predictor of future fracture may promote secondary prevention. Further studies with longer follow-up and stricter confounder control are recommended.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".