MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7162009891 · doi:10.82308/45195

The effect of [beta]-blockers on bone mineral density and fractures in the Canadian Multicentre Osteoporosis Study (CaMos) /

2007· dissertation· en· W7162009891 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Line. Vautour

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and osteoporosis research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBone mineralOsteoporosisConfidence intervalLogistic regressionOdds ratioProspective cohort studyBone densityCohort

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives. beta-blockers can alter bone turnover and increase bone formation in animals. It is unknown whether beta-blockers have similar bone protective effects in humans. We aimed to estimate the effects of beta-blockers on bone mineral density (BMD) and fractures using data from the Canadian Multicentre Osteoporosis Study, a large prospective cohort study. Methods. All medications, including beta-blockers, taken at baseline and after five years of follow-up were recorded. BMD was measured at baseline. During the five years of follow-up, incident minimal trauma fractures were documented by yearly questionnaires. To compare users of beta-blockers to non-users while controlling for possible confounders, multiple linear regression was utilized to estimate between group differences in BMD and multivariate logistic regression was employed to estimate differences in fracture risk. Results. Of the 9423 participants, 236 of 2884 males (8.2%) and 600 of 6539 females (9.2%) used beta-blockers at some point during the study. In men, beta-blocker users had differences of +1.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] -0.9%, 3.0%) and +1.2% (95% CI -0.5%, 4.0%) in baseline BMD at the total hip and at the lumbar spine, respectively, compared to non-users. In women, beta-blocker users had differences of +0.05% (95% CI -1.2%, 1.3%) and +0.2% (95% CI -1.3%, 1.7%) for the BMD of the total hip and the lumbar spine, respectively, compared to non-users. For users of beta-blockers at baseline, the adjusted odds ratio (OR) for any minimal trauma fracture was 1.23 (95% CI 0.67--2.25) in men and 1.02 (95% CI 0.76--1.35) in women. Chronic use (user at baseline and year 5) in men had an OR for any minimal trauma fracture of 2.1 (95% CI 1.0--4.3). In women who used beta-blockers at baseline but not at year 5, the OR for hip fracture was 6.3 (95% CI 2.0--19.3). The risk of fractures for other sites was inconclusive owing to wide confidence intervals. Conclusion. Despite relatively large numbers of subjects, wide confidence intervals do not permit strong conclusions with regards to the effect of beta-blockers on BMD in men. Using a 2% limit of clinical importance for BMD, there appears to be no effect of beta-blockers on BMD in women. There is some evidence from our study that beta-blockers may be associated with an increased risk of fractures in certain subsets of users.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.131
Threshold uncertainty score0.263

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.343 · 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
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBone health and osteoporosis research→French-language works237,207→