MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4321370394 · doi:10.1002/jbmr.4793

Performance of FRAX in Men With Prostate Cancer: A Registry-Based Cohort Study

2020· article· en· W4321370394 on OpenAlexaffabout
Carrie Ye, Suzanne N. Morin, Lisa M. Lix, Eugène McCloskey, Helena Johansson, Nicholas C. Harvey, John А. Kanis, William D. Leslie

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Bone and Mineral Research · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaMcGill UniversityUniversity of Alberta
FundersMedical Research CouncilNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsFRAXMedicineProstate cancerHazard ratioHip fractureOsteoporosisAndrogen deprivation therapyCohortInternal medicinePopulationConfidence intervalProportional hazards modelBone mineralCohort studyCancerUrologyOsteoporotic fracture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX®) was created to predict major osteoporotic fractures (MOF) and hip fractures in the general population. Whether FRAX accurately predicts fractures in men with prostate cancer is unknown. Our objective was to assess the performance of FRAX for predicting incident fractures in men with prostate cancer. Men from the Manitoba Bone Mineral Density (BMD) Registry (1996-2018) with prostate cancer diagnoses in the 3 years prior to dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) were identified. FRAX scores with and without BMD were calculated. From population-based healthcare data we identified incident MOF, hip fracture, any osteoporotic fracture and death from the date of BMD testing to March 31, 2018. Cox regression was performed to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) per standard deviation increase in FRAX score. Observed 10-year probability (estimated with competing risk of mortality) was compared with 10-year FRAX-predicted fracture probability to assess calibration. The study population included 684 men with prostate cancer (mean age 74.6 years) and 8608 men without prostate cancer (mean age 65.5 years). FRAX stratified risk for MOF (HR 1.91, 95% CI 1.48-2.45 with BMD; HR 1.96, 95% CI 1.43-2.69 without BMD) and hip fracture (HR 3.37, 95% CI 1.90-6.01 with BMD; HR 4.58, 95% CI 2.17-9.67 without BMD) in men with prostate cancer. There was no effect modification observed with prostate cancer status or current androgen deprivation therapy. Observed 10-year fracture probability in men with prostate cancer showed good agreement with FRAX with and without BMD included in the calculation (observed/predicted calibration ratios MOF 0.97, hip 1.00 with BMD; MOF 0.92, hip 0.93 with BMD). In conclusion, FRAX reliably predicts incident fractures in men with prostate cancer. © 2023 The Authors. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR).

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)0.005
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 score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.079

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.315 · 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

Citations9
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Bone and Mineral ResearchSame topicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207