MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388851331 · doi:10.1002/acr2.11619

Effect of Romosozumab Treatment in Postmenopausal Women With Osteoporosis and Knee Osteoarthritis: Results From a Substudy of a Phase 3 Clinical Trial

2023· article· en· W4388851331 on OpenAlexaffabout
Nancy E. Lane, Donald Betah, Cynthia Deignan, Mary Oates, Zhenxun Wang, Jen Timoshanko, Aliya Khan, Neil Binkley

Bibliographic record

VenueACR Open Rheumatology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOsteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersUCB PharmaChugai PharmaceuticalAlexion PharmaceuticalsAmgen
KeywordsMedicineOsteoarthritisWOMACPlaceboInternal medicineOsteoporosisPhysical therapyKnee painPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Romosozumab is a bone-forming agent approved for osteoporosis treatment. Here we report results of the protocol-specified, noninferiority osteoarthritis substudy of the fracture study in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis (FRAME), which evaluated the effect of romosozumab versus placebo on knee osteoarthritis in patients with a clinical history of osteoarthritis. METHODS: Women in FRAME with a history of knee osteoarthritis were eligible for enrollment in the osteoarthritis substudy; key inclusion criteria were osteoarthritis-related signal knee pain, morning stiffness lasting less than 30 minutes, knee crepitus, and knee osteoarthritis confirmed by x-ray within 12 months. The protocol-specified outcomes were change from baseline through month 12 in the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score, incidence of worsening knee osteoarthritis, and treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) with romosozumab versus placebo. In a post hoc analysis, percentage change from baseline to month 12 in bone mineral density (BMD) was assessed. RESULTS: Of 7180 women in FRAME, 347 participated in the osteoarthritis substudy (placebo, 177; romosozumab, 170). At month 12, no significant difference in progression of knee osteoarthritis was observed with romosozumab versus placebo (least squares mean total WOMAC score: -2.2 vs. -1.3; P = 0.71). Incidence of worsening symptoms of knee osteoarthritis was comparable between romosozumab (17.1%) and placebo (20.5%) (odds ratio 0.9 [95% confidence interval: 0.5, 1.7]; P = 0.69). Incidence of TEAEs of osteoarthritis was numerically lower with romosozumab (13 [7.7%]) versus placebo (21 [12.0%]). BMD gains were higher with romosozumab. CONCLUSION: Romosozumab treatment did not impact knee pain or function in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis and knee osteoarthritis and resulted in significant BMD gains in these women.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.328 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations10
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACR Open RheumatologySame topicOsteoarthritis Treatment and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207