Exercise for improving outcomes after osteoporotic vertebral fracture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Intervention). The objectives are as follows: The primary objective of the review will be to evaluate the effects of exercise or active physical therapy interventions (of four weeks or greater) versus non‐exercise or non‐physical therapy intervention, no intervention or placebo on the incidence of future fractures and adverse events among adults with a history of osteoporotic vertebral fracture(s). The secondary objectives of the review will be to evaluate the effect of exercise or active physical therapy interventions versus non‐exercise or non‐physical therapy intervention, no intervention or placebo on the following health‐related outcomes among adults with a history of osteoporotic vertebral fracture(s): pain, posture, physical function (including balance; mobility and muscle strength); incident falls; bone mineral density of the lumbar spine or hip measured using dual‐energy x‐ray absorptiometry (DXA); health‐related quality of life; activities of daily living; and falls self‐efficacy/fear of falling. We will also describe adherence to the intervention(s).
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 | 0.019 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.050 | 0.004 |
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".