MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3206674110 · doi:10.1002/jbmr.4457

Modeling-Based Bone Formation After 2 Months of Romosozumab Treatment: Results From the FRAME Clinical Trial

2020· article· en· W3206674110 on OpenAlexaff
Erik Fink Eriksen, Roland Chapurlat, Rogely Boyce, Yifei Shi, Jacques P. Brown, S. Horlait, Donald Betah, Cesar Libanati, Pascale Chavassieux

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Bone and Mineral Research · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and osteoporosis research
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersUCB PharmaAstellas PharmaAstellas Foundation for Research on Metabolic DisordersAstellas Pharma USAmgen
KeywordsSclerostinMedicineCancellous boneDenosumabBone remodelingUrologyBone resorptionPlaceboOsteoporosisEtidronic acidDentistryInternal medicinePathologyChemistryWnt signaling pathway

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT The bone-forming agent romosozumab is a monoclonal antibody that inhibits sclerostin, leading to increased bone formation and decreased resorption. The highest levels of bone formation markers in human patients are observed in the first 2 months of treatment. Histomorphometric analysis of bone biopsies from the phase 3 FRAME trial (NCT01575834) showed an early significant increase in bone formation with concomitant decreased resorption. Preclinical studies demonstrated that most new bone formation after romosozumab treatment was modeling-based bone formation (MBBF). Here we analyzed bone biopsies from FRAME to assess the effect of 2 months of romosozumab versus placebo on the surface extent of MBBF and remodeling-based bone formation (RBBF). In FRAME, postmenopausal women aged ≥55 years with osteoporosis were randomized 1:1 to 210 mg romosozumab or placebo sc every month for 12 months, followed by 60 mg denosumab sc every 6 months for 12 months. Participants in the bone biopsy substudy received quadruple tetracycline labeling and underwent transiliac biopsies at month 2. A total of 29 biopsies were suitable for histomorphometry. Using fluorescence microscopy, bone formation at cancellous, endocortical, and periosteal envelopes was classified based on the appearance of underlying cement lines as modeling (smooth) or remodeling (scalloped). Data were compared using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test, without multiplicity adjustment. After 2 months, the median percentage of MBBF referent to the total bone surface was significantly increased with romosozumab versus placebo on cancellous (18.0% versus 3.8%; p = 0.005) and endocortical (36.7% versus 3.0%; p = 0.001), but not on periosteal (5.0% versus 2.0%; p = 0.37) surfaces, with no significant difference in the surface extent of RBBF on all three bone surfaces. These data show that stimulation of bone formation in the first 2 months of romosozumab treatment in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis is predominately due to increased MBBF on endocortical and cancellous surfaces. © 2021 The Authors. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR). Abstract Bone biopsies from the FRAME trial were analyzed to evaluate MBBF and RBBF after romosozumab treatment. After 2 months, the median percentage of MBBF referent to the total bone surface was significantly increased with romosozumab vs placebo on cancellous and endocortical, but not periosteal surfaces, with no significant difference in the surface extent of RBBF on all three bone surfaces. MBBF, modeling-based bone formation; RBBF, remodeling-based bone formation

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.217
GPT teacher head0.454
Teacher spread0.236 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations45
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Bone and Mineral ResearchSame topicBone health and osteoporosis researchFrench-language works237,207