MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412943627 · doi:10.1093/jbmrpl/ziaf117

External validation of a novel HR-pQCT fracture risk assessment tool (<b>μ</b>FRAC) in a female cohort: Sahlgrenska University Hospital Prospective Evaluation of Risk of Bone Fractures (SUPERB) study

2025· article· en· W4412943627 on OpenAlexafffund
Annabel R Bugbird, Raju Jaiswal, Danielle E. Whittier, Steven K. Boyd, Mattias Lorentzon

Bibliographic record

VenueJBMR Plus · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and osteoporosis research
Canadian institutionsAlberta Bone and Joint Health InstituteUniversity of Calgary
FundersVetenskapsrådetCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchIngaBritt och Arne Lundbergs Forskningsstiftelse
KeywordsMedicineProspective cohort studyUniversity hospitalRisk assessmentCohortOsteoporotic fractureCohort studyOsteoporosisInternal medicineComputer scienceBone mineral

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Microarchitecture Fracture Risk Assessment Calculator ([Formula: see text]FRAC) was developed to predict osteoporotic fracture risk using direct measures of bone microarchitecture. However, its performance has not yet been externally validated in women. This study aims to evaluate the performance of the [Formula: see text]FRAC model in predicting osteoporotic fracture risk in a cohort of older women. The performance of [Formula: see text]FRAC was assessed in a population of 2307 postmenopausal women aged 75-80 yr in Gothenburg, Sweden. All participants underwent HR-pQCT scanning of the distal radius and distal tibia (82 [Formula: see text]m). Incident fracture information was collected from regional X-ray archives up until March 2023. The [Formula: see text]FRAC 5- and 10-yr risk of major osteoporotic fracture (MOF) and any osteoporotic fracture were calculated for all participants. The model discrimination was assessed using receiver operator characteristic (ROCs) curves and area under the curve (AUCs). FRAX and femoral neck areal bone mineral density (FN aBMD) were used as reference models for comparison. During the follow-up period (mean 6.82 [Formula: see text] 2.48 yr), 584 participants (25.3%) sustained an MOF. The AUCs for MOF models for 5- and 10-yr predictions were similar for [Formula: see text]FRAC (AUC = 0.601-0.634) compared with reference models of FRAX (AUC = 0.615-0.618) and FN aBMD (AUC = 0.596). Overall, [Formula: see text]FRAC showed good generalizability (regression slope 0.82-1.00) to the external cohort. Fracture risk prediction by [Formula: see text]FRAC was demonstrated to perform consistently with FRAX and FN aBMD in this external cohort of elderly females, suggesting it is a viable alternative fracture risk prediction tool. A benefit of [Formula: see text]FRAC is that it is based on bone microarchitecture rather than binary clinical risk factors, so it has potential to be sensitive to changes in bone fragility as a function of age-related deterioration or anti-osteoporosis treatment.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.853

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.350 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJBMR PlusSame topicBone health and osteoporosis researchFrench-language works237,207