Association between amino acids and recent osteoporotic fracture: a matched incident case-control study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Context: Osteoporotic fracture is a major public health issue globally. Human research on the association between amino acids (AAs) and fracture is still lacking. Objective: To examine the association between AAs and recent osteoporotic fractures. Methods: This age and sex matched incident case-control study identified 44 recent x-ray confirmed fracture cases in the Second Hospital of Jilin University and 88 community-based healthy controls aged 50+ years. Plasma AAs were measured by high performance liquid chromatography coupled with mass spectrometry. After adjusting for covariates (i.e., body mass index, milk intake >1 time/week, falls and physical activity), we conducted conditional logistical regression models to test the association between AAs and fracture. Results: Among cases there were 23 (52.3%) hip fractures and 21 (47.7%) non-hip fractures. Total, essential, and non-essential AAs were significantly lower in cases than in controls. In the multivariable conditional logistic regression models, after adjusting for covariates, each standard deviation increase in the total (odds ratio [OR]: 0.304; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.117-0.794), essential (OR: 0.408; 95% CI: 0.181-0.923) and non-essential AAs (OR: 0.290; 95%CI: 0.107-0.782) was negatively associated with recent fracture. These inverse associations were mainly found for hip fracture, rather than non-hip fractures. Among these AAs, lysine, alanine, arginine, glutamine, histidine and piperamide showed the significantly negative associations with fracture. Conclusion: There was a negative relationship between AAs and recent osteoporotic fracture; such relationship appeared to be more obvious for hip fracture.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
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 | 0.000 |
| 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".