MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415570967 · doi:10.1302/1358-992x.2025.11.005

DEFINING IMMINENT RISK USING FRAX SCORE MULTIPLIERS FOR PATIENTS WITH RECENT NON-HIP FRAGILITY FRACTURES

2025· article· en· W4415570967 on OpenAlexaff
Kaja Matovinovic, Scott Willms, L. Kennedy, Stephanie S. Yee, Emma O. Billington, P. Schneider

Bibliographic record

VenueOrthopaedic Proceedings · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHip and Femur Fractures
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFRAXOsteoporosisHip fractureFragilityFracture (geology)Absolute risk reductionRisk assessment

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The widely used Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) estimates a 10-year probability of major osteoporotic fracture (MOF) using age, sex, body mass index, and seven clinical risk factors, including prior fracture history. Prior fracture is binary in FRAX, although it is now clear that prior fractures affect future MOF risk differently depending on fracture recency and site. Risk of MOF is highest in the first two years following a fracture – this is defined as imminent risk. Therefore, the FRAX tool may underestimate true fracture risk, resulting in missed opportunities for earlier osteoporosis management. To address this, multipliers based on age, sex, and fracture type may be applied to baseline FRAX scores for patients with recent fractures. Adjusted FRAX estimates may enable earlier pharmacologic treatment and other risk reduction strategies. This study aimed to report the effect of multipliers on conventional FRAX scores in patients with recent non-hip and non-vertebral fragility fractures.  After obtaining Research Ethics Board approval, both standard and multiplier-adjusted FRAX scores were calculated for patients included in our outpatient Fracture Liaison Service who were 50 years or older and had experienced a distal radius or proximal humerus fracture between June 2020 and May 2022. Exclusion criteria consisted of patients under 50 years old, or hip or vertebral fractures. Age- and sex-based FRAX multipliers for recent distal radius and proximal humerus fractures described by McCloskey et al. (2021) were applied to conventional FRAX scores. Low, intermediate, and high-risk of MOF was defined as less than 10%, 10–20%, and greater than 20%, respectively. Data are reported as mean for continuous variables and as proportions for categorical variables. Paired samples t-tests were used to compare FRAX scores pre- and post-modifier adjustment. A total of 142 patients with an average age of 65 years (range = 50–97) were included. The majority of patients were female 90.1%, with 75.4% sustaining distal radius fractures and 24.6% sustaining proximal humerus fractures. In the distal radius group, the average MOF risk significantly increased from pre-multiplier (17.2) to post-multiplier adjustment (21.0; p<0.05). Seventeen percent of patients in the distal radius group moved from intermediate to high 10-year fracture risk after multiplier adjustment. Average FRAX scores significantly increased in the humerus group from before (16.1) to after multiplier adjustment (23.0; p <0.01), with 28.6% of patients moving from an intermediate risk to a high-risk score. Multiplier adjustment produces a clinically significant increase in conventional FRAX scores in some patients with recent non-hip fragility fractures. Twenty-eight percent of patients with humerus fractures and 17% of patients with distal radius fractures moved from intermediate to high- risk of MOF after multiplier adjustment, now meeting criteria for pharmacologic management. Using the modified FRAX score as a clinical decision-making tool in patients with recent fragility fractures may guide earlier initiation of anti-resorptive therapies and reduce the risk of future osteoporotic fractures.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.265 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOrthopaedic ProceedingsSame topicHip and Femur FracturesFrench-language works237,207