Prevalence of and risk factors for osteoporosis and fragility fracture in adults with cerebral palsy: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To systematically review the prevalence and incidence of osteoporosis, osteopenia, low bone mass, and fragility fracture in adults with cerebral palsy (CP), and identify the risk factors for osteoporosis and fracture. METHOD: A systematic literature search was performed in the MEDLINE, PubMed, CINAHL, AMED, Cochrane Reviews, EMBASE, and EBM database reviews from inception until May 2024. Search terms covered a combination of keywords for CP, fracture, osteoporosis, incidence and prevalence, and risk factors. Participants were adults with CP aged 18 years and older. JBI critical appraisal instruments were used to assess quality and risk of bias. RESULTS: Seventeen of 303 studies met the eligibility criteria to assess the prevalence and incidence of osteoporosis and fracture, and 16 of 663 studies to assess risk factors. Osteoporosis prevalence was 5% in a general adult population with CP, increasing to 43% in those attending outpatient clinics. Osteoporosis incidence reported in one study was 2.85 per 1000 person years. Prevalence of fragility fracture was 5.5% overall but up to 38% in outpatient settings. Risk factors for osteoporosis and fracture included mobility status, nutritional status, and anticonvulsant use. INTERPRETATION: Low bone density and fracture is common in adults with CP with reduced mobility. The main risk factors for poor bone health are related to reduced mobility, nutrition, and anticonvulsant use.
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 | 0.006 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".