Moving Beyond the 2018 Minimum International Care Considerations for Osteoporosis Management in Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy (DMD): Meeting Report from the 3rd International Muscle-Bone Interactions Meeting 7th and 14th November 2022
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Individuals living with Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) are at significant risk of bone fragility due to osteoporosis, with the most potent drivers of fragility fractures in this context stemming from the aggressive myopathy and long term oral glucocorticoid therapy. Young people with DMD have a high fracture burden, with reported total and vertebral fracture rates that are four [1, 2] and 535 times [1] higher than those of healthy growing boys, respectively. Vertebral fractures can occur as early as six months following daily glucocorticoid initiation [3]. Up to 75% of young people with DMD sustain at least one fracture after eight years of glucocorticoid therapy [4]. Fractures in DMD can lead to devastating outcomes, including steeper rates of functional decline, premature and permanent loss of ambulation, chronic pain, and even death from fat embolism syndrome or adrenal crisis following long bone fractures [2, 5–8]. The potential for serious consequences and medical complications linked to fractures has driven efforts to develop effective guidelines for timely bone health surveillance and treatment with more recent efforts to develop fracture prevention strategies.<br/><br/>To guide clinicians in the management of DMD and its related co-morbidities (including skeletal health), the first internationally-endorsed, minimum standards of care were published in 2010 under the moniker “Clinical Care Considerations” [9, 10]. This document recommends that osteoporosis monitoring include spine x-rays if back pain or kyphosis is present, followed by initiation of intravenous bisphosphonate therapy if vertebral fractures are identified [10]. In the years following the inaugural 2010 Clinical Care Considerations, studies were published showing that vertebral fractures, a key manifestation of bone fragility among children and adults living with glucorticoid-treated chronic conditions, were frequently asymptomatic, necessitating routine surveillance for early detection [3, 11]. It was also better appreciated that even a single long bone fracture can signal osteoporosis in a persistently high-risk setting such as DMD, and prompt initiation of bone protection therapy is important.<br/><br/>With this new knowledge, the latest international, minimum standards of clinical care for DMD published in 2018, known as Care Considerations [12–14], recommended routine, standardized spine imaging for early detection of vertebral fractures, combined with more timely bone-targeted (bisphosphonate) intervention in the presence of vertebral or low trauma long bone fractures [12]. At the same time, the ever-changing therapeutic landscape for the treatment of the underlying condition calls for ongoing examination of the intimate relationship between muscle and bone development in DMD, including the effect of different DMD treatment approaches on the skeletal and endocrine systems. The overall goal of such focus is to harvest discussions about optimal management that will foster bone strength and prevent fractures in this high-risk setting across all underlying disease-targeted treatment paradigms for people with DMD.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".