Similarly, performance of parsimonious models containing age and fracture history alone was nearly identical to that of FRAX models without BMD. Results The AUC comparisons showed no differences between FRAX models with BMD and simple models with age and BMD alone in discriminating hip (AUC, 0.75 for the FRAX model and 0.76 for the simple model P = .26), major osteoporotic (AUC, 0.68 for the FRAX model and 0.69 for the simple model P = .51), and clinical fracture (AUC, 0.64 for the FRAX model and 0.63 for the simple model P = .16). Area under the curve (AUC) statistics from receiver operating characteristic curve analysis were compared between FRAX models and simple models. Fractures (hip, major osteoporotic, and any clinical fracture) were ascertained during 10 years of follow-up. We also compared FRAX models without BMD with simple models based on age and fracture history alone. Methods We conducted a prospective cohort study in 6252 women 65 years or older to compare the value of FRAX models that include BMD with that of parsimonious models based on age and BMD alone for prediction of fractures. However, it is uncertain whether prediction with FRAX models is superior to that based on parsimonious models. Shared Decision Making and Communicationīackground A Web-based risk assessment tool (FRAX) using clinical risk factors with and without femoral neck bone mineral density (BMD) has been incorporated into clinical guidelines regarding treatment to prevent fractures.Scientific Discovery and the Future of Medicine.Health Care Economics, Insurance, Payment.Clinical Implications of Basic Neuroscience.Challenges in Clinical Electrocardiography.