MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1984093233 · doi:10.1359/jbmr.041133

Development and Initial Validation of a Risk Score for Predicting In‐Hospital and 1‐Year Mortality in Patients With Hip Fractures

2005· article· en· W1984093233 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Hong Jiang, Sumit R. Majumdar, Donald Dick, Marc Moreau, James Raso, David Otto, D. W. C. Johnston

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Bone and Mineral Research · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHip and Femur Fractures
Canadian institutionsGlenrose Rehabilitation HospitalUniversity of AlbertaRoyal Alexandra Hospital
FundersAlberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research
KeywordsMedicineHip fractureMortality rateCohortPopulationCohort studyEmergency medicineProportional hazards modelPhysical therapyInternal medicineOsteoporosisEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

UNLABELLED: Our objectives were to better define the rates and determinants of in-hospital and 1-year mortality after hip fracture. We studied a population-based cohort of 3981 hip fracture patients. Using multivariable regression methods, we identified risk factors for mortality (older age, male sex, long-term care residence, 10 prefracture co-morbidities) and calculated a hip fracture-specific score that could accurately predict or risk-adjust in-hospital and 1-year mortality. Our methods, after further validation, may be useful for comparing outcomes across hospitals or regions. INTRODUCTION: Hip fractures in the elderly are common and associated with significant mortality and variations in outcome. The rates and determinants of mortality after hip fracture are not well defined. Our objectives were (1) to define the rate of in-hospital and 1-year mortality in hip fracture patients, (2) to describe co-morbidities at the time of fracture, and (3) to develop and validate a multivariable risk-adjustment model for mortality. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We studied a population-based cohort of 3981 hip fracture patients > or =60 years of age admitted to hospitals in a large Canadian health region from 1994 to 2000. We collected sociodemographic and prefracture co-morbidity data. Main outcomes were in-hospital and 1-year mortality. We used multivariable regression methods to first derive a risk-adjustment model for mortality in 2187 patients treated at one hospital and then validated it in 1794 patients treated at another hospital. These models were used to calculate a score that could predict or risk-adjust in-hospital and 1-year mortality after hip fracture. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: The median age of the cohort was 82 years, 71% were female, and 26% had more than four prefracture co-morbidities. In-hospital mortality was 6.3%; 10.2% for men and 4.7% for women (adjusted odds ratio, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.3-2.4). Mortality at 1 year was 30.8%; 37.5% for men and 28.2% for women (adjusted p < 0.001). Older age, male sex, long-term care residence, and 10 different co-morbidities were independently associated with mortality. Risk-adjustment models based on these variables had excellent accuracy for predicting mortality in-hospital (c-statistic = 0.82) and at 1 year (c-statistic = 0.74). We conclude that 1 in 15 elderly patients with hip fracture will die during hospitalization, and almost one-third of those who survive to discharge will die within the year. The determinants of mortality were primarily older age, male sex, and prefracture co-morbidities. Our hip fracture-specific risk-adjustment tool is pragmatic and reliable, and after further validation, may be useful for comparing outcomes across different hospitals or regions.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
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 score0.126
Threshold uncertainty score0.251

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.328 · 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

Citations401
Published2005
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Bone and Mineral ResearchSame topicHip and Femur FracturesFrench-language works237,207