MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6950519417 · doi:10.53238/br_20237_481

Polyarthritis following infusion of zoledronic acid: a case study

2023· article· en· W6950519417 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsZoledronic acidPolyarthritisBisphosphonateOsteoporosisArthritisOsteoarthritisDiscontinuation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: Osteoporosis is a skeletal disorder characterized by compromised bone strength which predisposes one to the development of fragility fractures. Bisphosphonates are the most commonly used medications for the treatment of osteoporosis. Zoledronic acid is a popular bisphosphonate due to its convenience and efficacy. The most common side effects of zoledronic acid include pyrexia, myalgia, arthralgia, headache, and flu-like symptoms. More severe side effects such as arthritis are rarely reported. The current case describes a patient with underlying osteoarthritis who experienced polyarthritis following an infusion with zoledronic acid. Case Presentation: A case of a 68-year-old female with osteoporosis on a background of osteoarthritis who experienced polyarthritis after receiving an intravenous zoledronate infusion is reported. Though this is a rare phenomenon, a review of the literature suggests that patients with pre-existing osteoarthritis may be more likely to develop arthritis after bisphosphonate exposure. Conclusions: The current case, therefore, highlights the importance of discussions with patients around additional side effects of zoledronic acid, especially in those with underlying degenerative arthritis.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0050.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.266
GPT teacher head0.590
Teacher spread0.323 · 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 designCase report
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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)→Same topicBone health and treatments→French-language works237,207→