A Retrospective Review of Bone Health Screening of at-risk Children and Adolescents: A Single Center Experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Bone health surveillance that includes laboratory tests and dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) for patients with conditions that predispose them to a higher risk of osteoporosis is recommended. This study aimed to review current practice of such surveillance in a local tertiary referral centre. Methods Retrospective review of clinical data of patients who underwent DXA from 2013 to 2017 inclusive. Laboratory test results and presence of osteoporotic risk which was defined as bone mineral density (BMD) Z-score -2 SD or less were documented. Results This review consisted of 112 patients, 58 boys and age ranged from 1.1 to 20.3 years. Most referrals for DXA came from the subspecialty of nephrology (56.3%). Vitamin D status was rarely evaluated in this cohort of patients, only 17.9% of subjects had their vitamin D level checked. Overall, osteoporotic risk was demonstrated in 37% of the subjects. Thalassaemia, other haematological diseases like chronic ITP, osteogenesis imperfecta and inflammatory bowel disease accounted for majority of cases with high risk of osteoporosis. Conclusion DXA is underutilized in this center. Bone health surveillance and protection should be strengthened.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".