To the Editor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Journal has published the Canadian Consensus Practice Guidelines for Bisphosphonate Associated Osteonecrosis of the Jaw1. The report gives recommendations of a multidisciplinary group of experts, endorsed by the Canadian Association of Oral Maxillofacial Surgeons and other groups, regarding diagnosis, prevention and therapy of osteonecrosis of the jawbones (ONJ) associated with bisphosphonates. The authors claimed the report provides a “rational evidence-based approach to the diagnosis, prevention, and management of bisphosphonate-associated ONJ,” and that their guidelines are based on the “best available published data and the opinion of national and international experts involved in the prevention and management of ONJ”1. We recognize the efforts of these authors in trying to clarify the controversial aspects of ONJ and provide clinical recommendations that could potentially reduce the risk of development of ONJ. However, we would highlight that some of the statements and recommendations presented are not based on best available evidence, the consequences upon clinical practice being potentially significant. 1. The authors state that “a link between ONJ and bisphosphonates has not yet been identified in the patient with osteoporosis in whom these agents are used in very low doses”. This statement should be read with caution, as potency and bioavailability of bisphosphonates, further to overall dosage, is well known to determine the risk of ONJ2. Moreover, the authors seem not to consider the hundred cases of ONJ reported in patients with osteoporosis and diseases other than cancer treated with oral bisphosphonates— it already being admitted in 2006 by Merck3 that the number of reported cases of ONJ associated with alendronate was … Address reprint requests to Prof. G. Campisi, Dipartimento di Scienze Stomatologiche, Settore di Medicina Orale, Università di Palermo, Via del Vespro 129, Palermo, Italy. E-mail: campisi{at}odonto.unipa.it
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 | 0.003 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.137 | 0.068 |
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".