Treatment response to long term antiresorptive therapy in osteogenesis imperfecta type VI: does genotype matter?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objectives Osteogenesis imperfecta type VI (OI VI) follows a progressive and severe course, yet unlike other forms of severe OI it has a later onset of fractures, and extra-skeletal findings are not part of the clinical picture. Another difference is that there is an increase in unmineralized osteoid tissue in OI VI, which hinders the effect of bisphosphonates-the current standard of treatment for OI. Therefore, the response to standard treatments in OI VI is not satisfactory. Herein, we report long-term follow-up of two cases with novel SERPINF1 mutations, who show great variation in their treatment response to bisphosphonates. Case presentation The first case was given pamidronate at the age of 15 months when he could sit independently, followed a fluctuating course under treatment, fracture rate did not decrease, however he was able to mobilize with walker at the age of 10 years. On the other hand, the second case developed severe deformities and became wheelchair-bound under pamidronate, thus the treatment was switched to denosumab. Unfortunately, there was no improvement under denosumab after 15 months too, and since bone pain increased, denosumab treatment was stopped. He was put on zoledronic acid instead. Conclusion SERPINF1 transcript amount may be an important factor to explain the variation in response to pamidronate therapy. In OI VI patients, the factors affecting the clinical course should be identified and new or combined treatment options should be established.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".