MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4285808618 · doi:10.1093/pch/pxac036

Evaluating and optimizing bone health in children with chronic health conditions

2022· article· en· W4285808618 on OpenAlexaff
Celia Rodd, Nicole Kirouac, Julia Orkin, Ruth Grimes

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVitamin D Research Studies
Canadian institutionsCanadian Paediatric Society
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBone healthOsteoporosisPsychological interventionPeak bone massVitamin D and neurologyHealth careBone massPediatricsIntensive care medicineBone mineralNursingPsychiatryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Paediatric health care providers (HCPs) play an important role in optimizing bone health. Early intervention is essential to maximize the accrual of peak bone mass in adolescence and young adulthood and to reduce osteoporosis and fracture risk later in life. Children and adolescents with chronic health conditions may have several risk factors for poor bone health, including underlying inflammatory conditions, reduced weight-bearing activity, delayed puberty, and inadequate intake of calcium and vitamin D. Some medications-particularly glucocorticoids-can compromise bone mass and place a child at risk for fragility fractures. This practice point describes a targeted approach to identifying bone health risk factors in children and youth with chronic health conditions, highlights office initiatives aimed at optimizing bone mass accrual, and links HCPs to useful web-based tools and medical references. Indications for referral to a bone health specialist and bone-specific pharmacotherapeutic interventions are also reviewed.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.345 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child Health→Same topicVitamin D Research Studies→French-language works237,207→