MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4303859078 · doi:10.14740/jem840

Bone Mineral Density as a Predictor of Cardiovascular Disease in Women: A Real-World Retrospective Study

2022· article· en· W4303859078 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sarath Lal Mannumbeth Renjithlal, Mohamed Magdi, Mostafa Reda Mostafa, Keerthi Renjith, P.M.B. Pillai, Musaib Syed, Sarah Mohamed, Viqarunnisa Zahid, Nathan Ritter, Omar Al Ali, Mallory Balmer‐Swain, Amjad Makaryus, Nisha Pillai

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Endocrinology and Metabolism · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and osteoporosis research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOsteoporosisInternal medicineBone mineralBody mass indexOsteopeniaDiabetes mellitusOdds ratioMyocardial infarctionFRAXCardiologyPhysical therapyEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) in women remains understudied, under-diagnosed, and under-treated. Traditional risk factors affect men’s and women’s hearts differently. However, the current risk stratification tools do not consider such sex-specific factors. We aimed to investigate the utility of bone mineral density (BMD) with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scoring as a predictor of ASCVD in women. Methods: Data of 1,995 patients who underwent DXA scanning from 2012 to 2014 at multiple centers within our health system were collected through a chart review and using the SlicerDicer tool of Epic electronic medical records (EMR) to identify comorbidities and outcomes. Age, sex, race, history of hypertension (HTN), hyperlipidemia (HLD), diabetes mellitus (DM), body mass index (BMI), and smoking status were noted. The primary outcome was the composite of ASCVD events (stroke, myocardial infarction (MI) and cardiac death). Osteoporosis was defined as a T score of < -2.5, and osteopenia was defined as a combined T score between -1.5 to -2.5 in either hip, one of the femurs or combined. Results: Of the 1,995 female participants who underwent DXA scanning, 245 patients (10.8%) experienced ASCVD events during the mean follow-up of 9 years. After adjusting covariables, women with osteoporosis and combined low BMD have higher odds of the composite ASCVD events compared to normal BMD (odds ratio (OR) 4.60 (2.783 - 7.867), P < 0.0001). Low BMD in each site, the right femur, left femur, and hip is associated with an increased risk of ASCVD events (OR 6.50 (3.637 - 11.608), P < 0.0001; OR 5.07 (3.166 - 8.108), P < 0.000; OR 3.36 (2.127 - 5.312), P < 0.0001, respectively). Osteoporosis is independently linked to a 4.25-fold rise in MI incidence and a 3.64-fold rise in stroke. Osteopenia was not associated with ASCVD events (OR 1.29 (0.754 - 2.204), P = 0.35416). Conclusions: BMD measurement with DXA scan could stratify and predict the risk of ASCVD events in women, with no additional economic strain on healthcare. Further wide-scale studies are needed to utilize this potentially promising predictor and a commonly used test. J Endocrinol Metab. 2022;12(4-5):125-133 doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/jem840

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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.289 · 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

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Endocrinology and MetabolismSame topicBone health and osteoporosis researchFrench-language works237,207