Changes in health-related quality of life and activities of daily living after hip fracture because of a fall in elderly patients: a prospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The impact of hip fracture because of a fall on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and activities of daily living (ADL) have not been well established. AIM: To evaluate changes in HRQoL and the ability to conduct ADL among patients with hip fracture because of a fall and to compare these changes with patients who did not fall and break a hip, adjusting by gender and age. METHODS: Adults aged 65 or more who attended the emergency departments of seven public hospitals were recruited in a prospective double-cohort study (fracture cohort, n = 776; non-fracture cohort, n = 115). ADL and HRQoL were assessed at baseline (during the postfall hospitalisation or by telephone afterwards) and 6 months later using the Barthel Index and the Lawton Brody Index for ADL, and the Short Form Health Survey (SF-12) and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index short form (WOMAC-SF) for HRQoL. RESULTS: Adjusting by gender, age and baseline status, a hip fracture was a strong predictor of decline in all outcomes measured except for mental quality of life among men (measured by SF-12). Hip fracture patients younger than 74 years reported significantly more pain (measured by WOMAC-SF) than the comparison group (p = 0.02), but this difference was not observed among older patients (p = 0.19 for 75-84 years; p = 0.39 for ≥ 85 years). DISCUSSION: Hip fractures have profound effects on HRQoL and ADL in both men and women, regardless of age. This indicates the need for special follow-up care of elderly hip fracture patients in the immediate and late postfracture periods.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".