MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7062041649

TBS (Trabecular Bone Score) is More Sensitive Than BMD to Diabetes-Related Fracture Risk

2012· article· en· W7062041649 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueIRIS · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdaptive optics and wavefront sensing
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFRAXOsteoporosisTrabecular bone scoreDiabetes mellitusFemoral neckLogistic regressionOdds ratioHip fracture
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background:Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is associated with increased fracture risk but paradoxically greater BMD. TBS (trabecular bone score), a novel grey-level texture measurement extracted from DXA images, correlates with 3D parameters of bone micro-architecture. We evaluated the ability of lumbar spine (LS) TBS to account for the increased fracture risk in diabetes. Methods:29,407 women ≥50 years at the time of baseline hip and spine DXA were identified from a database containing all clinical BMD results for the Province of Manitoba, Canada. 2,356 of the women satisfied a well-validated definition for diabetes, the vast majority of whom (>90%) would have T2D. LS L14 TBS was derived for each spine DXA examination blinded to clinical parameters and outcomes. Health service records were assessed for incident non-traumatic major osteoporotic fracture codes (mean follow-up 4.7 years). Results:In linear regression adjusted for FRAX risk factors (age,BMI, glucocorticoids, prior major fracture, rheumatoid arthritis, COPD as a smoking proxy, alcohol abuse) and osteoporosis therapy, diabetes was associated with higher BMD for LS, femoral neck and total hip but lower LS TBS (all p<0.001). Similar results were seen after excluding obese subjects withBMI>30. In logistic regression (Figure), the adjusted odds ratio (OR) for a skeletal measurement in the lowest vs highest tertile was less than 1 for all BMD measurements but increased for LS TBS (adjusted OR 2.61, 95%CI 2.30-2.97). Major osteoporotic fractures were identified in 175 (7.4%) with and 1,493 (5.5%) without diabetes (p < 0.001). LS TBS predicted fractures in those with diabetes (adjusted HR 1.27, 95%CI 1.10-1.46) and without diabetes (HR 1.31, 95%CI 1.24-1.38). LS TBS was an independent predictor of fracture (p<0.05) when further adjusted for BMD (LS, femoral neck or total hip). The explanatory effect of diabetes in the fracture prediction model was greatly reduced when LS TBS was added to the model (indicating that TBS captured a large portion of the diabetes-associated risk), but was paradoxically increased from adding any of the BMD measurements. Conclusions:Lumbar spine TBS is sensitive to skeletal deterioration in postmenopausal women with diabetes, whereas BMD is paradoxically greater. LS TBS predicts osteoporotic fractures in those with diabetes, and captures a large portion of the diabetes-associated fracture risk. Combining LS TBS with BMD incrementally improves fracture prediction.

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)0.002
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIRISSame topicAdaptive optics and wavefront sensingFrench-language works237,207