MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412839050 · doi:10.3899/jrheum.2025-0726

Denosumab for Osteoporosis Treatment in Rheumatic Diseases: What Do We Know 15 Years Post Approval?

2025· editorial· en· W4412839050 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Stanley Cohen, Kenneth G. Saag

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Rheumatology · 2025
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBone Metabolism and Diseases
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAmgen
KeywordsMedicineDenosumabOsteoporosisPhysical therapyAlternative medicineIntensive care medicineInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Denosumab was approved for the treatment of postmenopausal patients with osteoporosis (OP) at high risk of fracture in 2010. This journey to approval was the result of extensive preclinical work in the 1990s demonstrating the role of the tumor necrosis factor (TNF) superfamily of proteins, namely receptor activator of nuclear factor-kB (RANK) and RANK ligand (RANKL), in the generation of activated mature osteoclasts from hematopoietic osteoclast progenitors.1

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0120.023
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.008

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of RheumatologySame topicBone Metabolism and DiseasesFrench-language works237,207