MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W841532312 · doi:10.1007/s11657-015-0218-3

Estimating osteoporotic fracture risk following a wrist fracture: a tale of two systems

2015· article· en· W841532312 on OpenAlexaffabout
Karen Beattie, Jonathan D. Adachi, George Ioannidis, Αλεξάνδρα Παπαϊωάννου, William D. Leslie, Ruby Grewal, Joy C. MacDermid, Anthony B. Hodsman

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Osteoporosis · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and osteoporosis research
Canadian institutionsSt Joseph's Health CareWestern UniversityUniversity of ManitobaSt. Peter's HospitalMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFRAXMedicineOsteoporosisFemoral neckOrthopedic surgeryPhysical therapyHip fractureRisk assessmentRisk management toolsInternal medicineBone mineralOsteoporotic fractureSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

UNLABELLED: The WHO fracture risk assessment (FRAX) and Canadian Association of Radiologists and Osteoporosis Canada (CAROC) tools can both be used to determine an individual's 10-year risk of osteoporotic fracture. However, these tools differ in their risk calculation. For participants <65 years with a wrist fracture, FRAX provides a lower fracture risk estimate than CAROC resulting in fewer decisions to initiate therapy. PURPOSE: The purpose of the current report is to compare fracture risk prediction rates using the CAROC and the FRAX® tools. METHODS: Individuals ≥50 years with a distal radius fracture resulting from a fall from standing height or less were recruited from a single orthopedic clinic. Participants underwent a DXA scan of their lumbar spine and hip. Femoral neck (FN) bone mineral density (BMD) and fracture risk factors were used to determine each participant's 10-year fracture risk using both fracture risk assessment tools. Participants were categorized as low (<10 %), moderate (10-20 %), or high (>20 %) risk. Stratified by age (<65 years, >65 years), the proportion of participants in each category was compared between the tools. RESULTS: Analyses included 60 participants (mean age 65.7 ± 9.6 years). In those <65 years (n = 26), the proportion of individuals at low, moderate, and high risk differed between the FRAX and CAROC tools (p < 0.0001). FRAX categorized 69 % as low (CAROC 0 %) and 3 % as high (CAROC 12 %) risk. For individuals >65 years, almost all were at least at moderate risk (FRAX 79 %, CAROC 53 %), but fewer were at high risk using FRAX (18 vs. 47 %, p < 0.0003). CONCLUSION: For participants <65 years with a wrist fracture, FRAX provides a lower estimate of 10-year fracture risk than CAROC resulting in fewer decisions to initiate therapy. However, almost all participants >65 years were at moderate or high risk under both FRAX and CAROC and should at least be considered for pharmacotherapy.

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)0.061
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.114
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.061
Threshold uncertainty score0.321

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0610.114
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0130.007
Science and technology studies0.0020.009
Scholarly communication0.0120.009
Open science0.0050.010
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.302 · 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

Citations10
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchives of OsteoporosisSame topicBone health and osteoporosis researchFrench-language works237,207