Global biomarkers of oxidative stress and fractures: a matched case-control study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Evidence for a relationship between oxidative stress and osteoporotic fractures in humans is limited. Fluorescent oxidation products (FlOPs, excitation/emission wavelengths 320/420nm denoted FlOP_320; 360/420nm [FlOP_360]; and 400/475nm [FlOP_400]) are global biomarkers of oxidative stress, and reflect oxidative damage to proteins, phospholipids, and nucleic acids. We investigated the association between FlOPs and a recent osteoporotic fracture. Methods: We conducted a case-control study in a Chinese population aged 50 years or older. A recent osteoporotic fracture in the cases was confirmed by x-ray. Cases were matched with community-based non-fracture controls (1:2 ratio) for age (± 4 years) and sex. In addition, we conducted a sensitivity unmatched case-control study which included all fracture cases and all eligible non-fracture controls prior to matching. Plasma FlOPs were measured with a fluorescent microplate reader. We used unconditional logistic regression to analyze the association between FlOPs (per 1-SD increase in logarithmic scale) and fracture; odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were reported. Results: Forty-four cases and 88 matched controls (mean age: 68.2 years) were included. After covariate adjustment (i.e., body mass index, physical activity, and smoking), higher FlOP_360 (OR = 1.85; 95% CI = 1.03 - 3.34) and FlOP_400 (OR = 13.29; 95% CI = 3.48 - 50.69) levels, but not FlOP_320 (OR = 0.56; 95% CI = 0.27 - 1.15), were associated with increased fracture risk. Subgroup analyses by fracture site and unmatched case-control study found comparable associations of FlOP_360 and FlOP_400 with hip and non-hip fractures. Conclusions: Higher FlOP_360 and FlOP_400 levels were associated with increased risk of fracture, and this association was comparable for hip and non-hip fractures. Prospective studies are warranted to confirm this finding.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".