Bibliographic record
Abstract
In order to help educate clinicians and other health care providers on the effects of glucocorticoids on bone and to provide appropriate treatment options for this condition using published data, this review will briefly explore bone loss associated with glucocorticoids, explain differences in drug efficacy between the prevention and treatment of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis, and examine the results of clinical drug trials. Based on current data, bisphosphonates appear to be the most effective therapy in both the prevention and treatment of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis. If bisphosphonate therapy is contraindicated, calcitonin may be an effective alternative. For patients who have been treated but continue to lose bone, anabolic therapy, fluoride, or vitamin D analogs may be considered. While hormone replacement therapy has been widely evaluated in the prevention and treatment of primary osteoporosis, no efficacy data exists as far as prevention and limited information is available in the treatment of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis. Bisphosphonates have shown significant treatment benefit. They increase bone mineral density and reduce the incidence of vertebral fractures. Bisphosphonates should be considered first line therapy for both the prevention and treatment of corticosteroid-induced osteoporosis. Drug Dev. Res. 49:120–134, 2000. © 2000 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".