MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7118415036 · doi:10.36000/hbt.2025.19.001

Advancements in Osteoporosis Diagnosis, Treatment and Fracture Management

2025· article· fr· W7118415036 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Berlemann, Popp, Hoppe

Bibliographic record

Venuehealthbook TIMES Das Schweizer Ärztejournal Journal Des Médecins Suisses · 2025
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldMedicine
TopicPelvic and Acetabular Injuries
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOsteoporosisTeriparatideScoliosisComplicationOrthopedic surgeryAdverse effect

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fractures are a frequent complication of osteoporosis, often leading to chronic pain, reduced mobility and a lower quality of life. Early detection of osteoporosis is vital, with diagnostic tools such as dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) and the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) providing accurate assessments of bone health and fracture risk. Treatment options continue to evolve, targeting various facets of bone metabolism. Anabolic therapies, such as parathyroid hormone analogs, promote new bone formation, while antiresorptive treatments, including bisphosphonates and monoclonal antibodies, help prevent further bone loss. Emerging combination therapies, such as romosozumab combined with denosumab, show enhanced efficacy in reducing fracture risk. For patients with vertebral fractures, minimally invasive procedures such as vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty can provide pain relief and restore spinal stability. Additionally, specific surgical techniques address special cases, such as sacral fatigue fractures and spinopelvic dissociation. For example, sacroplasty is effective for stabilizing sacral fractures, while spinopelvic triangular stabilization can restore function in complex spinopelvic injuries. Through a comprehensive approach that integrates prevention, advanced diagnostics, personalized treatments and precise surgical interventions, osteoporosis management can significantly improve patient outcomes and quality of life. PEER REVIEWED ARTICLE **Peer reviewers:** Prof. Dr Pedro L. Berjano, MD, PhD, Division of Spine Surgery (GSpine4), IRCCS Ospedale Galeazzi – Sant’Ambrogio, Milan, Italy Prof. Dr Pau Heini, Spine Surgery Department, Klinik Sonnenhof, Bern, Switzerland Prof. Dr Kan Min, Swiss Scoliosis – Centre for Spinal and Scoliosis Surgery, Hirslanden Klinik Im Park, Zurich, Switzerland Critical review by Prof. emer. Dr Max Aebi, University of Bern, Switzerland, and McGill University, Montreal, Canada Received on October 10, 2025; accepted after peer review on November 20, 2025; published on December 12, 2025.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.005

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.338 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuehealthbook TIMES Das Schweizer Ärztejournal Journal Des Médecins SuissesSame topicPelvic and Acetabular InjuriesFrench-language works237,207