MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389452442 · doi:10.1002/bies.202300117

Towards understanding how bisphosphonate‐dependent alterations to nutrient canal integrity can contribute to risk for atypical femoral fractures: Biomechanical considerations and potential relationship to a real‐world analogy

2023· article· en· W4389452442 on OpenAlexaff
David A. Hart

Bibliographic record

VenueBioEssays · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and osteoporosis research
Canadian institutionsAlberta Bone and Joint Health InstituteUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnalogyMechanism (biology)BisphosphonateOsteoporosisMedicineBone matrixRisk analysis (engineering)Intensive care medicineBioinformaticsBiologyAnatomyInternal medicineEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bisphosphonates are a class of drugs which have shown good efficacy in the treatment of post-menopausal osteoporosis, as well as a good safety profile. However, side-effects such as risk for atypical femoral fractures (AFF) have appeared, leading to a decline in use of the drugs by many patients who would benefit from the treatment. While patient characteristics have contributed to improved understanding of risk factors, the mechanisms involved that explain AFF risk have not appeared. Recently, the possibility that the mechanism(s) involved drug-induced modification of cells of the nutrient canals of the femur and subsequent compromise in the bone matrix has been published. The present Hypothesis article builds on the concept presented earlier and expands into biomechanical considerations. An analogy of the mechanisms involved to a real-life scenario is also presented. While this analogy has limitations, consideration of the biomechanical implications of progressive alterations to defects presented by compromised nutrient canal-bone matrix also presents potential relationships with AFF risk.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.733
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.100
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.282 · 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
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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioEssaysSame topicBone health and osteoporosis researchFrench-language works237,207