ArticleArchives of osteoporosis2026
Ten-year re-validation of the fracture risk assessment tool (FRAX®) in Taiwan.
Article in Archives of osteoporosis, 2026. 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The Taiwan-specific fracture risk assessment tool (FRAX) model is widely used to estimate 10-year fracture risk. However, FRAX with bone mineral density (BMD) may underestimate fracture risk, particularly in older adults. PURPOSE: To evaluate the predictive performance and calibration of the Taiwan-specific FRAX calculator using complete 10-year real-world outcomes and to establish data-driven, population-specific screening thresholds.
methodsA total of 1,976 participants aged ≥ 40 years were recruited from two population-based cohorts in Taiwan (2009-2010) and followed for 10 years via linkage with the National Health Insurance Research Database. Ten-year probabilities of major osteoporotic fracture (MOF) and hip fracture (HF) were estimated using Taiwan-specific FRAX calculators. Model calibration was evaluated using observed-to-expected (O/E) ratios. Statistically optimal thresholds were determined via receiver operating characteristic analysis maximizing the Youden index.
resultsDuring follow-up, 213 (10.8%) participants experienced MOF, and 93 (4.7%) experienced HF. FRAX without BMD demonstrated strong calibration for both MOF (O/E = 1.08; 95% CI: 0.94-1.24) and HF (O/E = 1.10; 95% CI: 0.89-1.34). Conversely, FRAX with BMD systematically underestimated risk, particularly among individuals aged ≥ 65 years (MOF O/E = 1.23; 95% CI: 1.06-1.42). Age, female sex, prior fracture, and low BMD were significant independent risk factors. Crucially, population-specific data-driven thresholds were identified via ROC analysis at 9.0% for MOF and 4.5% for HF using FRAX without BMD, and 8.5% for MOF and 4.0% for HF using FRAX with BMD, respectively.
conclusionFRAX® remains a useful and widely applied tool for fracture risk prediction in Taiwan. However, fracture risk may be underestimated, particularly in adults aged ≥ 65 years. Taiwan-specific, data-driven thresholds may improve risk stratification and support more targeted fracture prevention strategies.
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.