Bones of contention: Predicting and preventing fractures in patients receiving peritoneal dialysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Low bone density is common among those individuals receiving peritoneal dialysis. While cross-sectional studies support an association between low bone mineral density (BMD) and prevalent fracture, relying on bone density alone, particularly at the lumbar spine and in those with high degrees of hyperparathyroidism may underestimate fracture risk. Commonly used risk calculators in the general population have been shown to perform reasonably well in those receiving dialysis although they do not include any risk factors for high turnover bone disease that may play a role in increased fracture risk. The best options for decreasing fracture risk in patients receiving peritoneal dialysis are unclear. The evidence for bisphosphonates is limited to small studies of BMD, and concerns about drug accumulation have limited their use. Denosumab is more commonly used and has some evidence for improvement in BMD but carries with it a high risk of hypocalcaemia requiring rigorous prophylaxis. More research is needed to explore practical methods to identify those at risk of fracture and determine the efficacy of antiresorptive and anabolic therapies to decrease this risk.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".