ArticleHeliyon2024
Development of a diverse osteoporosis screening tool for older US adults from the health and retirement study.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Depressive Symptoms and Osteoporosis in Middle-Aged and Older Adults: A Cross-Sectional Analysis of NHANES and HRS Data.Geriatric orthopaedic surgery & rehabilitation · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Existing osteoporosis screening tools have limitations, including using race as a predictor, and development on homogeneous samples. This biases risk assessment of osteoporosis in diverse populations and increases health inequities. We develop a tool that relies on variables easily learned during point-of-care, known by individuals, and with negligible racial bias. Data from the 2012-2016 waves of the population-based cohort Health and Retirement Study (HRS) were used to build a predictive model of osteoporosis diagnosis on a 75 % training sample of adults ages 50-90. The model was validated on a 25 % holdout sample and a cross-sectional sample of American individuals ages 50-80 from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). Sensitivity and specificity were compared across sex and race/ethnicity. The model has high sensitivity in the HRS holdout sample (89.9 %), which holds for those identifying as female and across racial/ethnic groups. Specificity is 57.9 %, and area under the curve (AUC) is approximately 0.81. Validation in the NHANES sample using empirically measured osteoporosis produced relatively good values of sensitivity, specificity, and consistency across groups. The model was used to create a publicly-available, open-source tool called the Osteoporosis Health Equality (& Equity) Evaluation (OsteoHEE). The model provided high sensitivity for osteoporosis diagnosis, with consistently high results for those identifying as female, and across racial/ethnic groups. Use of this tool is expected to improve equity in screening and increase access to bone density scans for those at risk of osteoporosis. Validation on alternative samples is encouraged.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.