A Population-Based Registry Study of Extended Bisphosphonate Use: Minimal Shift After Landmark Publications About Shorter Treatment Duration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Optimal duration of bisphosphonate therapy was unknown until the FLEX study was published in 2006 showing a 5-year course to be adequate for most women. In 2008, a link between long-term bisphosphonate and atypical femoral fractures was reported and confirmed in later studies. We hypothesized these landmark observations should have led to a decrease in use of bisphosphonates for >5 or 10 years, from 2010 onward. The Manitoba Bone Mineral Density (BMD) Registry with linkage to provincial pharmacy data was used to determine the percentage of long- and very long-term bisphosphonate users from therapy start. The cohort comprised women aged >50 years with BMD between 1995 and 2018 with oral bisphosphonate first prescribed for >90 days with adherence >75% in the first year. For each calendar year of continued therapy, the percentage of patients and medication possession rate was tabulated. The percentage of users beyond 5 years was compared among patients who started therapy in 1998-2004 (those taking 5 years of therapy still finish before 2010) versus 2005-2012 (all new therapy starts overlap 2010 in those taking ≥5 years of treatment). The cohort included 2991 women with mean follow-up 8.8 (1.3) years, 64.9% of whom took continuous oral bisphosphonate for >5 years and 41.9% for >10 years. In the earlier versus later era, there were 74.4% versus 70.2% who completed 5 years. With respect to longer treatment, there were 68.0% and 60.5% of patients treated for 6 or more years (p < 0.0001) and 46.6% versus 33.5% treated for >10 years (p = 0.08). Medication possession rate was >79% in every year of therapy. Landmark studies leading to more limited bisphosphonate courses may have slightly reduced longer-term treatment, but up to one-third of adherent patients in the modern era still receive continuous bisphosphonate therapy for >10 years. © 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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".