MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Bone mineral density testing and the risk of fractures in men initiating androgen-deprivation therapy: Population-based study.

2022· article· en· W4298139317 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jason Hu, Armen Aprikian, Alice Dragomir

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAndrogen deprivation therapyBone mineralIncidence (geometry)CohortProstate cancerInternal medicinePopulationRetrospective cohort studyCohort studyOsteoporosisSurgeryPhysical therapyCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

238 Background: Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is a staple of advanced prostate cancer (PCa) treatment, however several side-effects are associated with its long-term use. Notably, loss of bone mineral density (BMD) is accelerated which increases fracture risk. Although guidelines recommend BMD testing when initiating ADT to properly assess baseline fracture risk, there is limited data to support this recommendation in the PCa patient population. The objective was to examine the association between baseline BMD testing (bBMDT) and the risk of fractures in men initiating ADT for PCa. Methods: A retrospective observational cohort study using data from Quebec public healthcare insurance administrative databases was conducted. The cohort included PCa patients who initiated ADT from 2004-2015 and who received at least one year of ADT treatment. Baseline BMD testing was defined as a BMD test performed from 6 months prior to ADT initiation and up to 3 months after. Patients were categorized as either having received bBMDT or not received bBMDT when initiating ADT. The primary study outcomes were incidence of any fracture and incidence of fractures resulting in hospitalization. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to adjust for measured baseline characteristics which included patient demographic variables, comorbidities, risk factors for fractures, and use of other medications affecting bone density. Results: We identified 13,532 patients who initiated ADT, of which 2,070 (15.3%) underwent bBMDT. The unadjusted 5-year incidence of any fracture was 15.1% for patients not receiving bBMDT and 14.0% for patients receiving bBMDT. In adjusted analyses, bBMDT (hazard ratio [HR] 0.92, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.76-1.12) was not associated with the risk of any fracture. For fractures requiring hospitalization, bBMDT was associated with a lower risk (HR 0.71, 95%CI 0.52-0.98). Furthermore, bBMDT was associated with increased odds of bisphosphonate use within 1 year of ADT initiation among patients who were bisphosphonate-naïve at baseline (odds ratio [OR] 2.03, 95%CI 1.74-2.36). Conclusions: In our study population, bBMDT was associated with a lower risk of fractures resulting in hospitalization. Given the low uptake of bBMDT, additional efforts emphasizing the importance of BMD testing in guidelines may be needed.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.428
Threshold uncertainty score0.851

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.140
GPT teacher head0.474
Teacher spread0.334 · 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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research→French-language works237,207→