Evaluation of Functional Recovery by Motor Functional Independence Measure Test of Elderly After Hip Fracture in Serbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The aim of the study was to evaluate motor functional status measured by motor Functional Independence Measure (mFIM) test in population above 65 years of age after the hip fracture. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We evaluated 203 patients after hip fracture by mFIM test on 3 occasions: at admission (Period-1), at discharge (Period-2) and 3 months after discharge (Period-3); 3 age groups: Group(65-74), Group(75-84) and Group(85-up) and 2 groups concerning Severity Index (SI): group 0-1.99 (SI1) and group ≥ 2 (SI2). RESULTS: In same SI group there is significant increase in mFIM values for Period-2 and Period-3 for both genders and in first two age groups, while for those above 85 years of age with higher SI we found non-significant change in mFIM values between discharge and 3 months post discharge period. DISCUSSION: The most significant improvement is obtained for women in first and third age groups and with higher SI. CONCLUSION: Gender is not significant predictor for motor functional recovery measured by mFIM test in patients with hip fracture, although the admittance mFIM is a good indicator for mFIM capacity recovery in women of certain age groups (first and third age groups).
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".