Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37784165›Full record

ArticleDiagnostic and prognostic research2023

An enhanced version of FREM (Fracture Risk Evaluation Model) using national administrative health data: analysis protocol for development and validation of a multivariable prediction model.

Simon Bang Kristensen, Anne Clausen, Michael Kriegbaum Skjødt, Jens Søndergaard, Bo Abrahamsen, Sören Möller, Katrine Hass Rubin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Diagnostic and prognostic research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. An enhanced Fracture Risk Evaluation Model (FREM) using national health data on morbidity and medications.Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research · 2025
    Article
  2. Introducing FREMArchives of osteoporosis · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Simon Bang KristensenResearch Unit OPEN, Department of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Heden 16, Odense C, 5000, Denmark.
Anne ClausenResearch Unit OPEN, Department of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Heden 16, Odense C, 5000, Denmark.
Michael Kriegbaum SkjødtResearch Unit OPEN, Department of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Heden 16, Odense C, 5000, Denmark.
Jens SøndergaardResearch Unit of General Practice, Department of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.
Bo AbrahamsenResearch Unit OPEN, Department of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Heden 16, Odense C, 5000, Denmark.
Sören MöllerResearch Unit OPEN, Department of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Heden 16, Odense C, 5000, Denmark.
Katrine Hass RubinResearch Unit OPEN, Department of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Heden 16, Odense C, 5000, Denmark. krubin@health.sdu.dk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5045-536X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOsteoporosis poses a growing healthcare challenge owing to its rising prevalence and a significant treatment gap, as patients are widely underdiagnosed and consequently undertreated, leaving them at high risk of osteoporotic fracture. Several tools aim to improve case-finding in osteoporosis. One such tool is the Fracture Risk Evaluation Model (FREM), which in contrast to other tools focuses on imminent fracture risk and holds potential for automation as it relies solely on data that is routinely collected via the Danish healthcare registers. The present article is an analysis protocol for a prediction model that is to be used as a modified version of FREM, with the intention of improving the identification of subjects at high imminent risk of fracture by including pharmacological exposures and using more advanced statistical methods compared to the original FREM. Its main purposes are to document and motivate various aspects and choices of data management and statistical analyses.

methodsThe model will be developed by employing logistic regression with grouped LASSO regularization as the primary statistical approach and gradient-boosted classification trees as a secondary statistical modality. Hyperparameter choices as well as computational considerations on these two approaches are investigated by an unsupervised data review (i.e., blinded to the outcome), which also investigates and handles multicollinarity among the included exposures. Further, we present an unsupervised review of the data and testing of analysis code with respect to speed and robustness on a remote analysis environment. The data review and code tests are used to adjust the analysis plans in a blinded manner, so as not to increase the risk of overfitting in the proposed methods. DISCUSSION: This protocol specifies the planned tool development to ensure transparency in the modeling approach, hence improving the validity of the enhanced tool to be developed. Through an unsupervised data review, it is further documented that the planned statistical approaches are feasible and compatible with the data employed.

Indexed as

Automated risk calculationDecision aidDecision support toolGeneral practiceGradient-boosted classification treesLASSO regularizationMachine learningOsteoporotic fracturesPrediction algorithmPrimary careRegister data

Identifiers

PMID37784165
PMCPMC10546772

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.