ArticleOrthopedic research and reviews2026
Retrospective Development and Internal Validation of a Diagnostic Model to Identify Secondary Osteoporosis in Community-Dwelling Older Men.
Article in Orthopedic research and reviews, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To develop and validate a clinical prediction model integrating lumbar spine bone mineral density (LS-BMD) and fall risk assessment for identifying secondary osteoporosis in community-dwelling elderly men. Methods: This retrospective cross-sectional study enrolled men aged 65 years or older from community health centers and geriatric outpatient clinics (June 2023-December 2025). Secondary osteoporosis was defined as T-score ≤ -2.5 at any site (lumbar spine, femoral neck, or total hip) with at least one confirmed major secondary etiology (hypogonadism, glucocorticoid use, vitamin D deficiency, etc). Controls were men with normal BMD or osteopenia without secondary etiology. Participants were randomly assigned to training (70%) and validation (30%) sets. LASSO regression and multivariate logistic regression were used for variable selection and model construction. Bootstrap resampling provided optimism-corrected performance estimates. Results: Among 843 eligible participants (mean age 73.12±5.27 years), 187 (22.18%) were diagnosed with secondary osteoporosis. Six independent predictors were identified: age, LS-BMD T-score, history of fall, testosterone, glucocorticoid use, and vitamin D level. The apparent AUC was 0.846 (95% CI: 0.815-0.878) in the training set and 0.798 (95% CI: 0.741-0.854) in the validation set; the optimism-corrected AUC was 0.731, indicating moderate discrimination. Calibration was satisfactory. Decision curve analysis confirmed clinical net benefit. Of note, three predictors (testosterone, vitamin D, glucocorticoid use) overlap with the diagnostic criteria for secondary osteoporosis, and the AUC values should be interpreted with this caveat in mind. Conclusion: This study developed a preliminary clinical prediction model for identifying secondary osteoporosis in elderly men using internal validation. The model integrates LS-BMD T-score, fall risk, Vitamin D, testosterone, and glucocorticoid use, but external validation is required before clinical application. The overlap between several predictors and the diagnostic criteria represents an important limitation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.