AI Article Synopsis

  • The FRISBEE fracture risk prediction models were tested on a group of 9716 Canadian women, revealing that while they showed strong discriminatory ability, they tended to overestimate fracture risk.
  • The study aimed to validate these prediction models for fractures, major osteoporotic fractures (MOFs), and central fractures using data from women's BMD assessments in Manitoba.
  • Results indicated effective risk stratification (AUROC values of 0.69 to 0.72), with a notable gradient of risk increase for women, indicating that those with higher risk scores had significantly higher odds of experiencing fractures.

Article Abstract

Unlabelled: Five-year fracture risk prediction from the Fracture Risk Brussels Epidemiological Enquiry (FRISBEE) models was externally tested in 9716 Canadian women and demonstrated good discrimination but consistently overestimated risk.

Introduction: Five-year risk prediction models for all fractures, major osteoporotic fractures (MOFs) and central fractures (proximal to forearm and ankle) from the FRISBEE cohort demonstrated good performance in the original derivation cohort. Our aim was to externally validate the FRISBEE-based 5-year prediction models in routine practice.

Methods: Using the population-based Manitoba Bone Mineral Density (BMD) registry, we identified women aged 60-85 years undergoing baseline BMD assessment from September 1, 2012 to March 31, 2018. Five-year probabilities of all fractures, MOFs and central fractures were calculated using the FRISBEE prediction models. We identified incident non-traumatic fractures up to 5 years from population-based healthcare data sources. Performance characteristics included area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), gradient of risk (hazard ratio [HR] per SD increase and across risk tertiles) from Cox regression analysis, and calibration (ratio 5-year observed cumulative incidence to predicted fracture probability).

Results: We included 9716 women (mean age 70.7 + / - SD 5.3 years). During a mean observation time of 2.5 years, all fractures, MOFs and central fractures were identified in 377 (3.9%), 264 (2.7%) and 259 (2.7%) of the women. AUROC showed significant fracture risk stratification with the FRISBEE models (all fractures 0.69 [95%CI 0.67-0.72], MOFs 0.71 [95%CI 0.68-0.74], central fractures 0.72 [95%CI 0.69-0.75]). There was a strong gradient of risk for predicting fracture outcomes per SD increase (HRs from 1.98 to 2.26) and across risk tertiles (HRs for middle vs lowest from 2.25 to 2.41, HRs for highest vs lowest from 4.70 to 6.50). However, risk was overestimated for all fractures (calibration-in-the-large 0.63, calibration slope 0.63), MOF (calibration-in-the-large 0.51, calibration slope 0.57) and central fractures (calibration-in-the-large 0.55, calibration slope 0.60).

Conclusions: FRISBEE 5-year prediction models were externally validated to stratify fracture risk similar to the derivation cohort, but would need recalibration for Canada as risk was overestimated.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11657-022-01205-7DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

prediction models
20
central fractures
20
fracture risk
16
fractures
12
fractures mofs
12
mofs central
12
calibration slope
12
risk
11
frisbee 5-year
8
risk prediction
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!