MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403509733 · doi:10.1093/jbmrpl/ziae126

Evaluating the relationship between glycemic control and bone fragility within the UK Biobank: observational and one-sample Mendelian randomization analyses

2024· article· en· W4403509733 on OpenAlexaff
Samuel Ghatan, Fjorda Koromani, Katerina Trajanoska, Evert F S van Velsen, Maryam Kavousi, M. Carola Zillikens, Carolina Medina‐Gómez, Ling Oei, Fernando Rivadeneira

Bibliographic record

VenueJBMR Plus · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic Associations and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityGenome Canada
FundersEuropean Commission
KeywordsMendelian randomizationObservational studyBiobankGlycemicFragilitySample (material)MedicinePsychologyDiabetes mellitusInternal medicineBiologyBioinformaticsGeneticsEndocrinologyGenotypeChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We aimed to: (1) examine the relationship between glycemic control, BMD estimated from heel ultrasound (eBMD) and fracture risk in individuals with type 1 (T1D) and type 2 diabetes (T2D) and (2) perform a one-sample Mendelian randomization (MR) study to explore potential causal associations between glycemic control, eBMD, and fractures. This study comprised 452 131 individuals from the UK Biobank with glycated hemoglobin A1C (HbA1c) and eBMD levels. At baseline, 4078 participants were diagnosed with T1D and 23 682 with T2D. HbA1c was used to classify patients into “adequately-” (ACD; n = 17 078; HbA1c < 7.0%/53 mmol/mol) and “inadequately-” (ICD; n = 10 682; HbA1c ≥ 7.0%/53 mmol/mol) controlled diabetes. In individuals with T1D, a 1% unit (11 mmol/mol) increase in HbA1c levels was associated with a 12% increase in fracture risk (HR: 1.12, 95% CI [1.05-1.19]). Fracture risk was highest in individuals with T1D and ICD (HR 2.84, 95%CI [2.53, 3.19]), followed by those with ACD (HR 2.26, 95%CI [1.91, 2.69]), as compared to subjects without diabetes. Evidence for a non-linear association between HbA1c and fracture risk was observed (F-test ANOVA p-value = 0.002) in individuals with T2D, with risk being increased at both low and high levels of HbA1c. Fracture risk between the T2D ACD and ICD groups was not significantly different (HR: 0.97, 95%CI [0.91-1.16]), despite increased BMD. In MR analyses genetically predicted higher HbA1c levels were not significantly associated with fracture risk (causal risk ratio: 1.04, 95%CI [0.95-1.14]). We did observe evidence of a non-linear causal association with eBMD (quadratic test p-value = 0.0002), indicating U-shaped relationship between HbA1c and eBMD. We obtained evidence that lower HbA1c levels will reduce fracture risk in patients with T1D. In individuals with T2D, lowering HbA1c levels can mitigate the risk of fractures up to a threshold, beyond which the risk may begin to rise again.

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)0.038
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.095
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 score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.202

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0380.095
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.193
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJBMR PlusSame topicGenetic Associations and EpidemiologyFrench-language works237,207