A COMPARISON BETWEEN FRAX AND OSTEOPOROSIS CANADA’S TOOL IN ASSESSMENT OF MAJOR OSTEOPOROTIC FRACTURE RISK IN POSTMENOPAUSAL WOMEN
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study was carried out to compare the 10-yr risk of major osteoporotic fracture provided by the tool of Osteoporosis Canada (OC) and by the WHO’s calculator FRAX on an identical group of postmenopausal women. We randomly selected n.298 women aged 50 yr and older ,we collected the risk factors requested by the algorithms and we performed DXA scan.Then we calculated the risks . The mean age of our sample was 60,05 yr (range 50-84).As expected, the differences in the rate of women’s assignment to analogue risk classes by the two tools were statistically significant (p<0,001). The rate of accordance, in terms of class risk allocation, was of 41,9%, in all other cases FRAX indicated lower risk classes than the OC’s tool and in 9,7% they respectively assigned a low risk vs an high risk for identical women
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".