Oral bisphosphonates for treatment of sublesional osteoporosis after spinal cord injury: A retrospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This retrospective analytic cohort study compared the proportion of bisphosphonate users versus nonusers with a 5% clinically important increase in bone mineral density (CII in BMD) of the total hip region from baseline over a minimum 18 month period among subjects with spinal cord injury (SCI) and sublesional osteoporosis. Eligible SCI subjects (n = 64) were identified from two rehabilitation centres in Ontario with a total hip BMD T-score of le;-1.5 and two hip BMD measures ge;18 months apart. BMD measures were obtained via chart abstraction. Bisphosphonate exposure was self reported. Users (n = 42) were defined by ge;60% adherence. There was no difference in the proportion of users 35.7% (15/42) versus nonusers 31.5% (8/22) with a CII in BMD of the total hip (Fisher's Exact test, df = 1, p = 0.58). A median 36 months exposure did not predict a CII in BMD of the total hip region.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".