Updated practice guideline for dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA)
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The introduction of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) technology in the 1980s revolutionized the diagnosis, management and monitoring of osteoporosis, providing a clinical tool which is now available worldwide. However, DXA measurements are influenced by many technical factors, including the quality control procedures for the instrument, positioning of the patient, and approach to analysis. Reporting of DXA results may be confounded by factors such as selection of reference ranges for T-scores and Z-scores, as well as inadequate knowledge of current standards for interpretation. These points are addressed at length in many international guidelines but are not always easily assimilated by practising clinicians and technicians. Our aim in this report is to identify key elements pertaining to the use of DXA in clinical practice, considering both technical and clinical aspects. Here, we discuss technical aspects of DXA procedures, approaches to interpretation and integration into clinical practice, and the use of non-bone mineral density measurements, such as a vertebral fracture assessment, in clinical risk assessment.
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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it