Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To review what predictors are of positive or negative value in the rehabilitation procedure following hip fractures. METHOD: Reviewing a doctorial thesis on prognosis and rehabilitation of elderly with a hip fracture from 1980 and then review the literature on this subject for the following quarter of a century. RESULTS: In the Western world the short-term prognosis for early return home after sustaining a hip fracture depends on the success of the operation allowing independent walking and basic activities of daily life, no debilitating disease and having someone at home. The one-year prognosis for having returned and remained at home requires a reasonable good health irrespective of living alone and a somewhat deteriorated hip function. CONCLUSIONS: It is difficult to make comparisons with studies of other populations and other time periods. Different predictors of the rehabilitation are used and the definitions of these are not always the same. They are of varying weight, can change with time and may be interdependent of each other. For example, general medical condition and age are strongly interrelated predictors but age alone is less important than concomitant disease for the success of the rehabilitation. Nevertheless, already on admission of a patient with a fresh hip fracture a reliable prognosis can be done. However, such a prediction must be guided by ethical, social and scientific concerns.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".