Hip fracture types in men and women change differently with age
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hip fractures are expensive and a frequent cause of morbidity and mortality in the elderly. In most studies hip fractures have been viewed as a unitary fracture but recently the two main types of fracture (intertrochanteric and subcapital) have been viewed as two fractures with a different etiology and requiring a different approach to prevention. The relative proportion of intertrochanteric fractures increases with age in women. In previous studies no particular pattern in men has been noted. In this study, we explored changes in the relative proportion of the two fracture types with age in the two genders. METHODS: Patients of 50 years and older, with a diagnosis of hip fracture, discharged from two local acute care hospitals over a 5 year period (n = 2150) were analyzed as a function of age and gender to explore the relative proportions of intertrochanteric and subcapital fractures, and the change in relative proportion in the two genders with age. RESULTS: Overall, for the genders combined, the proportion of intertrochanteric fractures increases with age (p = .007). In women this increase is significant (p < .001), but in men the opposite pattern is observed, with the proportion of intertrochanteric fractures falling significantly with age (p = .025). CONCLUSIONS: The pattern of hip fractures is different in men and women with aging. It is likely that the pattern difference reflects differences in type and rate of bone loss in the genders, but it is conjectured that the changing rate and pattern of falling with increasing age may also be important. The two main hip fracture types should be considered distinct and different and be studied separately in studies of cause and prevention.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".