These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

109 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22410634)

  • 1. Bone: Performance of fracture risk prediction tools--old and new.
    Killock D
    Nat Rev Rheumatol; 2012 Mar; 8(4):183. PubMed ID: 22410634
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. External validation and comparison of three prediction tools for risk of osteoporotic fractures using data from population based electronic health records: retrospective cohort study.
    Dagan N; Cohen-Stavi C; Leventer-Roberts M; Balicer RD
    BMJ; 2017 Jan; 356():i6755. PubMed ID: 28104610
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Performance of predictive tools to identify individuals at risk of non-traumatic fracture: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression.
    Beaudoin C; Moore L; Gagné M; Bessette L; Ste-Marie LG; Brown JP; Jean S
    Osteoporos Int; 2019 Apr; 30(4):721-740. PubMed ID: 30877348
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Direct comparison of eight national FRAX® tools for fracture prediction and treatment qualification in Canadian women.
    Leslie WD; Brennan SL; Lix LM; Johansson H; Oden A; McCloskey E; Kanis JA
    Arch Osteoporos; 2013; 8():145. PubMed ID: 23929269
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Comparison of different screening tools (FRAX®, OST, ORAI, OSIRIS, SCORE and age alone) to identify women with increased risk of fracture. A population-based prospective study.
    Rubin KH; Abrahamsen B; Friis-Holmberg T; Hjelmborg JV; Bech M; Hermann AP; Barkmann R; Glüer CC; Brixen K
    Bone; 2013 Sep; 56(1):16-22. PubMed ID: 23669650
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Assessment of the individual fracture risk of the proximal femur by using statistical appearance models.
    Schuler B; Fritscher KD; Kuhn V; Eckstein F; Link TM; Schubert R
    Med Phys; 2010 Jun; 37(6):2560-71. PubMed ID: 20632568
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. The accuracy of different FRAX tools in predicting fracture risk in Japan: A comparison study.
    Xu G; Yamamoto N; Hayashi K; Takeuchi A; Miwa S; Igarashi K; Taniguchi Y; Araki Y; Yonezawa H; Morinaga S; Tsuchiya H
    J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong); 2020; 28(2):2309499020917276. PubMed ID: 32336240
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Choosing the tool for osteoporosis risk prediction.
    Cormier C; Koumakis E; Souberbielle JC
    Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care; 2015 Sep; 18(5):457-64. PubMed ID: 26241819
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Fracture Risk Prediction Modeling and Statistics: What Should Clinical Researchers, Journal Reviewers, and Clinicians Know?
    Schousboe JT; Langsetmo L; Taylor BC; Ensrud KE
    J Clin Densitom; 2017; 20(3):280-290. PubMed ID: 28712982
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Fracture Risk of Long Bone Metastases: A Review of Current and New Decision-Making Tools for Prophylactic Surgery.
    Nguyễn MV; Carlier C; Nich C; Gouin F; Crenn V
    Cancers (Basel); 2021 Jul; 13(15):. PubMed ID: 34359563
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Evaluation of three risk assessment tools in discriminating fracture status among Chinese patients undergoing hemodialysis.
    Chang AJ; Ying Q; Chen XN; Wang WM; Chen N
    Osteoporos Int; 2016 Dec; 27(12):3599-3606. PubMed ID: 27392466
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Comparison of screening tools for optimizing fracture prevention in Canada.
    Leslie WD; Lix LM; Binkley N
    Arch Osteoporos; 2020 Oct; 15(1):170. PubMed ID: 33111193
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. A New Ensemble Classification System For Fracture Zone Prediction Using Imbalanced Micro-CT Bone Morphometrical Data.
    Korfiatis VC; Tassani S; Matsopoulos GK; Korfiatis VC; Tassani S; Matsopoulos GK
    IEEE J Biomed Health Inform; 2018 Jul; 22(4):1189-1196. PubMed ID: 28692998
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Will absolute fracture risk prediction facilitate treatment of osteoporosis?
    Solomon DH
    Nat Clin Pract Endocrinol Metab; 2008 Sep; 4(9):480-1. PubMed ID: 18594489
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Towards clinical application of biomechanical tools for the prediction of fracture risk in metastatic bone disease.
    Derikx LC; Verdonschot N; Tanck E
    J Biomech; 2015 Mar; 48(5):761-6. PubMed ID: 25560270
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Bone quality: educational tools for patients, physicians, and educators.
    Shams J; Spitzer AB; Kennelly AM; Tosi LL
    Clin Orthop Relat Res; 2011 Aug; 469(8):2248-59. PubMed ID: 21400004
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. A Novel Fracture Prediction Model Using Machine Learning in a Community-Based Cohort.
    Kong SH; Ahn D; Kim BR; Srinivasan K; Ram S; Kim H; Hong AR; Kim JH; Cho NH; Shin CS
    JBMR Plus; 2020 Mar; 4(3):e10337. PubMed ID: 32161842
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. "'Timed up and go' test and bone mineral density measurement for fracture prediction.
    Zhu K; Devine A; Lewis JR; Dhaliwal SS; Prince RL
    Arch Intern Med; 2011 Oct; 171(18):1655-61. PubMed ID: 21987195
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Fall risk: the clinical relevance of falls and how to integrate fall risk with fracture risk.
    Peeters G; van Schoor NM; Lips P
    Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol; 2009 Dec; 23(6):797-804. PubMed ID: 19945691
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Fracture risk assessment in postmenopausal women with diabetes: comparison between DeFRA and FRAX tools.
    Bonaccorsi G; Messina C; Cervellati C; Maietti E; Medini M; Rossini M; Massari L; Greco P
    Gynecol Endocrinol; 2018 May; 34(5):404-408. PubMed ID: 29172781
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.