Trabecular Bone Score in Individuals with Chronic Spinal Cord Injury: A Cross-Sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: To describe lumbar spine (LS) trabecular bone score (TBS) values after SCI, and to explore the differences in fractures risk assessment between FRAX® and TBS-adjusted FRAX® in individuals living with chronic SCI. Methods: Baseline dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scans from an established cohort were acquired using a Hologic Discovery QDR 4500. TBS measurements were performed using the TBS iNsight TM software version 2.1.2.0. A Welch's t-test was performed to explore differences in TBS, FRAX®, and TBS-adjusted FRAX® between men and women, between participants ≤49 years and ≥50 years, and between subgroups with and without history of fracture and with complete and incomplete injury. Results: We analyzed 37 scans; the mean TBS was 1.336 ± 0.107. The mean 10-year fracture risk was 8.8% ± 11.4% for major osteoporotic fracture and 4.0% ± 10.8% for hip fracture according to FRAX®, and 6.6% ± 2.8% for major osteoporotic fracture and 2.8% ± 6.7% for hip fractures according to TBS-adjusted FRAX®. The 10-year fracture risk for major osteoporotic fractures was higher in individuals with a prior fragility fracture compared to those without, according to FRAX® ( p = .033) and TBS-adjusted FRAX® ( p = .001). Conclusion: Over a half of our sample presented a partially degraded bone microarchitecture based on TBS. TBS was not different between people with motor complete and motor incomplete injury or with and without prior fragility fracture. Future studies are needed to define the clinical relevance of TBS and TBS-adjusted FRAX® in people with chronic SCI.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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, 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".