Estimation of functional recovery in patients after hip fracture by Berg Balance Scale regarding the sex, age and comorbidity of participants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To evaluate the functional status measured by Berg Balance Scale (BBS) in elderly aged more than 65 years after hip fractures, and to evaluate the influence of sex, age and comorbidity on balance function improvement. METHODS: The study included 203 patients with hip fractures. Functional status was evaluated by BBS: at admission (Group 1), at discharge (Group 2) and 3 months after discharge (Group 3). We analyzed three age groups: Group 65-74 , Group 75-84 and Group 85-up; female and male sex separately; and for severity index value (SI; total cumulative illness rating scale for geriatrics score divided by number of endorsed categories): group between 0-1.99 (SI1 ) and group ≥ 2 (SI2 ). RESULTS: BBS values significantly declined in all male groups and female Group 2 and Group 3 in SI2 (P < 0.01). Group 65-74 and Group 85-up had a significant BBS values decline in Group 2 and Group 3, whereas Group 75-84 had a significant decline in all groups in the SI2 group (P < 0.01). Females and males had a significant BBS values increase in the SI1 groups (P < 0.01), and non-significant BBS values increase between Group 2/Group 3 for SI2 . Group85-up had a significant BBS values increase in SI1 (Group 1/Group 2 and Group 1/Group 3; P < 0.01); a non-significant increase between Group 1/Group 2 and Group 1/Group 3, and a non-significant decline between Group 2/Group 3 in SI2. CONCLUSIONS: Male sex, increased comorbidity and age more than 85 years could be considered with lower functional recovery capacity potential after hip fracture, and thus should be individually assessed and continuously monitored. Functional status estimation by BBS could be taken as a sensitive predictive value for the evaluation of functional improvement in these patients.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".