Response rates for lumbar spine, total hip, and femoral neck bone mineral density in men treated with abaloparatide: results from the ATOM study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Osteoporosis in men is an underappreciated public health issue, accounting for approximately 30% of the societal burden of osteoporosis. Although the prevalence of osteoporosis in men is lower, fracture-related morbidity and mortality rates exceed those of women. Abaloparatide is a synthetic, 34-amino acid peptide with homology to human parathyroid hormone-related protein (PTHrP), which favors bone formation by selective activation of PTH receptor type 1. In the Abaloparatide for the Treatment of Men With Osteoporosis (ATOM; NCT03512262) trial, 228 men with primary or hypogonadism-associated osteoporosis were randomized to receive subcutaneous injections of abaloparatide 80 μg or placebo. Abaloparatide significantly improved LS, TH, and FN BMD when compared with placebo. In this prespecified analysis, the proportion of men with a percent change from baseline of >0%, >3%, and > 6% in BMD at the LS, TH, and FN at 3, 6, and 12 mo and/or a shift in T-score category (based on LS and TH T-scores) at 12 mo was compared between the abaloparatide and placebo groups in ATOM. There were significantly more men with a BMD gain of >3% at all 3 anatomical sites in the abaloparatide than placebo group at month 6 (18/122 [14.8%] vs 1/70 [1.4%], P = .002) and at month 12 (38/119 [31.9%] vs 1/66 [1.5%], P < .0001). At month 3, more men treated with abaloparatide than placebo had a > 3% BMD increase at the LS (82/134 [61.2%] vs 21/68 [30.9%], P < .0001). A greater proportion of men treated with abaloparatide had an improvement in T-score category from osteoporosis to low BMD or normal when compared with placebo. In conclusion, use of abaloparatide compared with placebo for 12 mo resulted in significant and rapid improvements in BMD in men with osteoporosis from the ATOM study.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".