MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389274229 · doi:10.1002/jbm4.10839

When Cortical Bone Matrix Properties Are Indiscernible between Elderly Men with and without Type 2 Diabetes, Fracture Resistance Follows Suit

2023· article· en· W4389274229 on OpenAlexaff
Eva Maria Wölfel, Benjamin Bartsch, Jasmin Koldehoff, Imke A.K. Fiedler, Sofie Dragoun Kolibová, Felix N. Schmidt, Johannes Krug, Mei‐Chun Lin, Klaus Püschel, Benjamin Ondruschka, Elizabeth A. Zimmermann, Hans Jelitto, Gerold A. Schneider, Bernd Gludovatz, Björn Busse

Bibliographic record

VenueJBMR Plus · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and osteoporosis research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersUniversitätsklinikum Hamburg-EppendorfDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftUniversity of New South WalesEuropean Commission
KeywordsType 2 diabetesCortical boneFracture (geology)Matrix (chemical analysis)Resistance (ecology)Bone matrixMedicineDiabetes mellitusInternal medicineComposite materialMaterials scienceEndocrinologyBiologyAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a metabolic disease affecting bone tissue and leading to increased fracture risk in men and women, independent of bone mineral density (BMD). Thus, bone material quality (i.e., properties that contribute to bone toughness but are not attributed to bone mass or quantity) is suggested to contribute to higher fracture risk in diabetic patients and has been shown to be altered. Fracture toughness properties are assumed to decline with aging and age‐related disease, while toughness of human T2DM bone is mostly determined from compression testing of trabecular bone. In this case‐control study, we determined fracture resistance in T2DM cortical bone tissue from male individuals in combination with a multiscale approach to assess bone material quality indices. All cortical bone samples stem from male nonosteoporotic individuals and show no significant differences in microstructure in both groups, control and T2DM. Bone material quality analyses reveal that both control and T2DM groups exhibit no significant differences in bone matrix composition assessed with Raman spectroscopy, in BMD distribution determined with quantitative back‐scattered electron imaging, and in nanoscale local biomechanical properties assessed via nanoindentation. Finally, notched three‐point bending tests revealed that the fracture resistance (measured from the total, elastic, and plastic J‐integral) does not significantly differ in T2DM and control group, when both groups exhibit no significant differences in bone microstructure and material quality. This supports recent studies suggesting that not all T2DM patients are affected by a higher fracture risk but that individual risk profiles contribute to fracture susceptibility, which should spur further research on improving bone material quality assessment in vivo and identifying risk factors that increase bone fragility in T2DM. © 2023 The Authors. JBMR Plus published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations8
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJBMR PlusSame topicBone health and osteoporosis researchFrench-language works237,207