MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1904335908

Postfracture care for older women: gaps between optimal care and actual care.

2008· article· en· W1904335908 on OpenAlexaffabout
Colleen Metge, William D. Leslie, Lori-Jean Manness, Marina Yogendran, Chui Kin Yuen, Brent Kvern

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHip and Femur Fractures
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaManitoba Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOsteoporosisPharmacotherapyHip fractureBone mineralCohortPopulationObservational studyPhysical therapyHealth carePediatricsEmergency medicineInternal medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To investigate rates of assessment and treatment of osteoporosis among older women during the year after they have had fractures. DESIGN: Observational, historical, population-based cohort study. SETTING: Manitoba, which maintains a comprehensive population-based repository of health care services provided and has a publicly funded health care system. PARTICIPANTS: Women 50 years old and older who had suffered fractures between 1997 and 2002. These women were chosen from among approximately 175,000 women of this age in Manitoba. METHODS: We examined each woman's annual medical record between April 1, 1997, and March 31, 2002, to find any International Classification of Diseases fracture codes that have been consistently associated with osteoporosis. We looked for postfracture care during the first 12 months after fractures: bone mineral density (BMD) testing or treated with osteoporosis pharmacotherapy. Analysis was stratified by type of fracture: designated type 1 fractures (spine or hip) and type 2 fractures (not spine or hip). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Use of BMD testing or osteoporosis pharmacotherapy during the first 12 months following fractures. RESULTS: For type 1 fractures, BMD assessment during the first year after fracture increased from 2.6% in 1997-1998 to 4.6% in 2001-2002 (P for trend .0004). Rates of therapy with osteoporosis medication increased from 4.9% in 1997-1998 to 17.6% in 2001-2002 (P for trend < .0001). Results were similar for type 2 fractures. In the final year of the study, only 20.5% of women with either type of fracture underwent any identifiable intervention (BMD assessment or osteoporosis pharmacotherapy). The intervention rate was substantially higher among women 50 to 64 years old (26.4%) than among those 75 years old or older (17.9%, P for trend < .0001). CONCLUSION: Women at highest risk of future fractures are assessed infrequently for osteoporosis with BMD testing and given pharmacotherapy to prevent future fractures just as infrequently. This gap in care was particularly striking for BMD testing despite the fact that testing is free in Manitoba's publicly funded system. Data from this study could be educational for physicians treating osteoporosis and should encourage them to improve their practice patterns and optimize patient care.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.181
Threshold uncertainty score0.360

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.230 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations40
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicHip and Femur FracturesFrench-language works237,207