Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is interesting to see that our observation on declining incidence of hip fracture in Finland between late 1990s and 2004(1) is receiving confirmation from Ontario, Canada. Dr Jaglal does not specify what age group the given numbers and age-adjusted rates of hip fracture concern, but the rates are so low that most likely the entire Ontario population (without any age limitation) was used as the population at risk. Now we have also received preliminary data from 2005, and it seems that the hip fracture incidence has declined further in both sexes in Finland. All these findings raise the question about the reasons for the rather rapid secular change in the risk of hip fracture among older adults of developed societies. As we discussed in detail in our original paper,(1) the exact reasons for this are unknown, but a cohort effect toward a healthier aging population, increased average body weight, and improved functional ability among older adults could partly explain the phenomenon. Also, actions to prevent osteoporosis and falling and interventions to minimize fall severity cannot be completely ruled out when discussing the reasons for the declining rates of hip fracture. More detailed research is, however, needed to better understand this welcome trend.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".