ArticleJBMR plus2025
External validation of a novel HR-pQCT fracture risk assessment tool (
Article in JBMR plus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Microarchitecture Fracture Risk Assessment Calculator ([Formula: see text]FRAC) was developed to predict osteoporotic fracture risk using direct measures of bone microarchitecture. However, its performance has not yet been externally validated in women. This study aims to evaluate the performance of the [Formula: see text]FRAC model in predicting osteoporotic fracture risk in a cohort of older women. The performance of [Formula: see text]FRAC was assessed in a population of 2307 postmenopausal women aged 75-80 yr in Gothenburg, Sweden. All participants underwent HR-pQCT scanning of the distal radius and distal tibia (82 [Formula: see text]m). Incident fracture information was collected from regional X-ray archives up until March 2023. The [Formula: see text]FRAC 5- and 10-yr risk of major osteoporotic fracture (MOF) and any osteoporotic fracture were calculated for all participants. The model discrimination was assessed using receiver operator characteristic (ROCs) curves and area under the curve (AUCs). FRAX and femoral neck areal bone mineral density (FN aBMD) were used as reference models for comparison. During the follow-up period (mean 6.82 [Formula: see text] 2.48 yr), 584 participants (25.3%) sustained an MOF. The AUCs for MOF models for 5- and 10-yr predictions were similar for [Formula: see text]FRAC (AUC = 0.601-0.634) compared with reference models of FRAX (AUC = 0.615-0.618) and FN aBMD (AUC = 0.596). Overall, [Formula: see text]FRAC showed good generalizability (regression slope 0.82-1.00) to the external cohort. Fracture risk prediction by [Formula: see text]FRAC was demonstrated to perform consistently with FRAX and FN aBMD in this external cohort of elderly females, suggesting it is a viable alternative fracture risk prediction tool. A benefit of [Formula: see text]FRAC is that it is based on bone microarchitecture rather than binary clinical risk factors, so it has potential to be sensitive to changes in bone fragility as a function of age-related deterioration or anti-osteoporosis treatment.
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.