MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387995665 · doi:10.21037/qims-23-513

The role of genetic and epigenetic factors in determining the risk of spinal fragility fractures: new insights in the management of spinal osteoporosis

2023· review· en· W4387995665 on OpenAlexaff
Vratko Himič, Νikolaos Syrmos, Gianfranco K. I. Ligarotti, So Kato, Michael G. Fehlings, Mario Ganau

Bibliographic record

VenueQuantitative Imaging in Medicine and Surgery · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone and Joint Diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEpigeneticsOsteoporosisMedicineFragility fractureBioinformaticsPathologyBiologyGeneticsBone mineralGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Osteoporosis predisposes patients to spinal fragility fractures. Imaging plays a key role in the diagnosis and prognostication of these osteoporotic vertebral fractures (OVF). However, the current imaging knowledge base for OVF is lacking sufficient standardisation to enable effective risk prognostication. OVF have been shown to be more prevalent in Caucasian patient cohorts in comparison to the Eastern Asian population. These population-based differences in risk for developing OVF suggest that there could be genetic and epigenetic factors that drive the pathogenesis of osteoporosis, low bone mineral density (BMD) and OVF. Several genetic loci have been associated with a higher vertebral fracture risk, although at varying degrees of significance. The present challenge is clarifying whether these associations are specific to vertebral fractures or osteoporosis more generally. Furthermore, these factors could be exploited for diagnostic interpretation as biomarkers [including novel long non-coding (lnc)RNAs, micro (mi)RNAs and circular (circ)RNAs]. The extent of methylation of genes, alongside post-translational histone modifications, have shown to affect several interlinked pathways that converge on the regulation of bone deposition and resorption, partially through their influence on osteoblast and osteoclast differentiation. Lastly, in addition to biomarkers, several exciting new imaging modalities could add to the established dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) method used for BMD assessment. New technologies, and novel sequences within existing imaging modalities, may be able to quantify the quality of bone in addition to the BMD and bone structure; these are making progress through various stages of development from the pre-clinical sphere through to deployment in the clinical setting. In this mini review, we explore the literature to clarify the genetic and epigenetic factors associated with spinal fragility fractures and delineate the causal genes, pathways and interactions which could drive different risk profiles. We also outline the cutting-edge imaging modalities which could transform diagnostic protocols for OVF.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.585
Threshold uncertainty score0.556

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.303 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations21
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQuantitative Imaging in Medicine and SurgerySame topicBone and Joint DiseasesFrench-language works237,207