MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415046433 · doi:10.1093/jbmr/zjaf144

Automated abdominal aortic calcification and trabecular bone score independently predict incident fracture during routine osteoporosis screening

2025· article· en· W4415046433 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Abadi Kahsu Gebre, Marc Sim, Syed Zulqarnain Gilani, Afsah Saleem, Cassandra Smith, Didier Hans, Siobhan Reid, Barret A. Monchka, Douglas Kimelman, Mohammad Jafari Jozani, John T. Schousboe, Joshua R. Lewis, William D. Leslie

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Bone and Mineral Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and osteoporosis research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaGeorge & Fay Yee Centre for Healthcare InnovationConcordia University
FundersAgNovos HealthcareRaine Medical Research FoundationUniversity of ManitobaNational Heart Foundation of AustraliaAmgen
KeywordsTrabecular bone scoreOsteoporosisSubclinical infectionBone mineralProportional hazards modelCohortBone densityCohort study

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abdominal aortic calcification (AAC), a marker of subclinical cardiovascular disease, has previously shown to be associated with low BMD and fracture. However, it remains unclear whether AAC is associated with trabecular bone score (TBS), a gray-level textural measure, or whether it predicts fracture risk independent of this measure. Here, we examined the cross-sectional association of AAC scored using a validated machine learning algorithm (ML-AAC24) with TBS, and their simultaneous associations with incident fractures in 7691 individuals (93.4% women) through the Manitoba BMD Registry (mean age 75.3 yr). The association between ML-AAC24 and TBS was tested using generalized linear regression. Cox proportional hazards models tested the simultaneous relationships of ML-AAC24 and TBS with incident fractures. At baseline, 41.3% of the study cohort had low (<2), 32.4% had moderate (2 to <6), and 26.3% had high (≥6) ML-AAC24. Compared to low ML-AAC24, high ML-AAC24 was associated with a 0.81% lower TBS in the multivariable-adjusted model. Independent of each other and multiple established fracture risk factors, ML-AAC24 and TBS were each associated with an increased risk of incident fractures. Specifically, high ML-AAC24 (HR 1.41, 95% CI: 1.15-1.73, compared to low ML-AAC24) and lower TBS (HR 1.13, 95% CI: 1.05-1.22, per SD decrease) were associated with increased relative hazards for any incident fracture. High ML-AAC24 and lower TBS were also associated with incident major osteoporotic fracture (HR 1.48, 95% CI: 1.18-1.87 and HR 1.15, 95% CI: 1.06-1.25, respectively) and hip fracture (HR 1.56, 95% CI: 1.05-2.31 and HR 1.25, 95% CI: 1.08-1.44, respectively). In conclusion, high ML-AAC24 is associated with lower TBS in older adults attending routine osteoporosis screening. Both measures were associated with incident fractures. The findings of this study highlight high ML-AAC24, seen in more than 1 in 4 of the study cohort, and lower TBS provide complementary prognostic information for fracture risk.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.343 · 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 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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Bone and Mineral ResearchSame topicBone health and osteoporosis researchFrench-language works237,207