A Structured Literature Synthesis to Identify Measures for Screening for the Risk of Adverse Outcomes in Individuals Following Distal Radius Fracture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
© 2014 by Begell House, Inc. Previous research has indicated the need to screen for the risk for falls and fall-related fragility fractures following distal radius fracture (DRF) but has not specifically described how to do so. The objective of this review was to perform a systematic literature synthesis to derive a battery of measures to screen for the risk for falls and fall-related fractures in individuals with DRF. Using a systematic literature search and predefined inclusion criteria, this review identified selected measures that reflect the best evidence for the context for assessing these risks among patients with DRF. The results of this review indicate that the Activity-specific Balance Confidence Scale and the Timed Up and Go Test have established psychometric properties and good potential for screening individuals with DRF who fear falling and have a balance impairment, respectively. The FRAX tool is suggested for computing the 10-year risk of hip fracture and a major osteoporotic fracture. Further research to validate the measures identified in this review is recommended.
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 | 0.028 | 0.095 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.025 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.002 |
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".