MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404236741 · doi:10.1097/md.0000000000040468

Type 2 diabetes and bone mineral density: A meta-analysis and systematic review

2024· review· en· W4404236741 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Minghan Li, Honggu Chen, Weiwei Ma, Ying Li

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and osteoporosis research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisBone mineralType 2 diabetesSystematic reviewMEDLINEDiabetes mellitusBone densityInternal medicineDentistryEndocrinologyOsteoporosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Type 2 diabetes (T2D), a widespread chronic metabolic disorder, presents frequently in clinical settings. The relationship between T2D and bone mineral density (BMD) has been subject to ongoing investigation, yielding inconclusive results. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted across several databases, including CNKI, VIP, CBM, Wanfang, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase, targeting observational studies that explored the impact of microangiopathy associated with T2D on BMD or bone metabolism. The search spanned from the inception of each database to July 1, 2023. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was employed for quality assessment, and RevMan 5.3 software was utilized for data analysis. Stata 14.0 was used for the quantitative evaluation of publication bias regarding outcome measures. RESULTS: The inclusion criteria were met by 30 observational studies, comprising 6470 participants-3121 with diabetes and 3349 without. The meta-analysis revealed no significant difference in overall BMD between the nondiabetic and T2D groups (mean difference [MD] = -0.07, 95% confidence interval [CI] [-0.17, 0.03], Z = 1.45, P = .15). However, BMD at the lumbar vertebrae was significantly higher in nondiabetic individuals compared with those with T2D (MD = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.22, -0.06], Z = 3.32, P = 0.0009), as was the case with femoral neck BMD (MD = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.18, -0.04], Z = 3.08, P = .002). A difference in femoral neck BMD between nondiabetics and individuals with T2D approached but did not reach statistical significance (MD = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.00], Z = 1.94, P = .05). An inverted funnel plot analysis suggested possible publication bias, as evidenced by an asymmetrical distribution of studies around the axis of symmetry, with overlap observed in several cases. CONCLUSION: The findings indicate a significant association between T2D and reduced BMD at critical sites such as the lumbar vertebrae and femoral neck, highlighting an increased risk of osteoporosis or osteoporotic fractures in these regions.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.064

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0170.030
Bibliometrics0.0070.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.145
GPT teacher head0.436
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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