Erratum for Abaloparatide in Postmenopausal Women With Osteoporosis and Type 2 Diabetes: A Post Hoc Analysis of the <scp>ACTIVE</scp> Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article corrects the following: Abaloparatide in Postmenopausal Women With Osteoporosis and Type 2 Diabetes: A Post Hoc Analysis of the ACTIVE Study Ruban Dhaliwal, Didier Hans, Gary Hattersley, Bruce Mitlak, Lorraine A Fitzpatrick, Yamei Wang, Ann V Schwartz, Paul D Miller, Robert G Josse Volume 4, Number 4, Journal of Bone and Research Plus page e10346 JBMR Plus. 2020 Feb 27;4(4):e10346. doi: 10.1002/jbm4.10346. eCollection 2020 Apr. First published online: https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm4.10346 “At 6 months, mean percent change from baseline in lumbar spine TBS was 2.63% (95% CI, 1.54% to 3.72%) in the abaloparatide group, 1.32% (95% CI, 0.38% to 2.26%) in the teriparatide group, and −0.10% (95% CI, −1.14% to 0.94%) in the placebo group (P < 0.01 for abaloparatide versus placebo and P < 0.05 for teriparatide versus placebo; difference between abaloparatide and teriparatide was not significant).”(1) ACTIVE = Abaloparatide Comparator Trial In Vertebral Endpoints; T2DM = type 2 diabetes mellitus. aIndicates adverse events that occurred in at least 5% of patients (in any arm) with T2DM in ACTIVE. bFour patients with a reported adverse event of T2DM were marked “condition aggravated.” cHypercalcemia was defined as albumin-corrected serum calcium value ≥10.7 mg/dL (≥2.67 mmol/L) at any time point, which was a prespecified secondary endpoint. In Fig. 1, the “Ns” were reported incorrectly for the teriparatide (TPTD) and placebo (PBO) treatment groups. This error has now been corrected in the revised Fig. 1 shown here. The authors regret any confusion and inconvenience this may have caused the readers of JBMR Plus. The main conclusion of the study, that abaloparatide treatment resulted in significant improvements in BMD and lumbar spine TBS compared with placebo in the T2DM population, was not affected by the errors. The peer review history for this article is available at https://publons.com/publon/10.1002/jbm4.10414. The peer review history for this article is available at https://publons.com/publon/10.1002/jbm4.10414.
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 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".