A Fracture Risk Assessment Tool for High Resolution Peripheral Quantitative Computed Tomography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most fracture risk assessment tools use clinical risk factors combined with bone mineral density (BMD) to improve assessment of osteoporosis; however, stratifying fracture risk remains challenging. This study developed a fracture risk assessment tool that uses information about volumetric bone density and three-dimensional structure, obtained using high-resolution peripheral quantitative compute tomography (HR-pQCT), to provide an alternative approach for patient-specific assessment of fracture risk. Using an international prospective cohort of older adults (n = 6802) we developed a tool to predict osteoporotic fracture risk, called μFRAC. The model was constructed using random survival forests, and input predictors included HR-pQCT parameters summarizing BMD and microarchitecture alongside clinical risk factors (sex, age, height, weight, and prior adulthood fracture) and femoral neck areal BMD (FN aBMD). The performance of μFRAC was compared to the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) and a reference model built using FN aBMD and clinical covariates. μFRAC was predictive of osteoporotic fracture (c-index = 0.673, p < 0.001), modestly outperforming FRAX and FN aBMD models (c-index = 0.617 and 0.636, respectively). Removal of FN aBMD and all clinical risk factors, except age, from μFRAC did not significantly impact its performance when estimating 5-year and 10-year fracture risk. The performance of μFRAC improved when only major osteoporotic fractures were considered (c-index = 0.733, p < 0.001). We developed a personalized fracture risk assessment tool based on HR-pQCT that may provide an alternative approach to current clinical methods by leveraging direct measures of bone density and structure. © 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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".