Fractures in the elderly: when is hip replacement a necessity?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As the world's population ages, hip fractures pose a significant health care problem. Hip fractures in the elderly are associated with impaired mobility, and increased morbidity and mortality. Associated conditions, such as osteoporosis, medical comorbidity, and dementia, pose a significant concern and determine optimal treatment. One-year mortality rates currently range from 14% to 36%, and care for these patients represents a major global economic burden. The incidence of hip fractures is bimodal in its distribution. Young adult hip fractures are the result of high energy trauma, and the larger peak seen in the elderly population is secondary to low-energy injuries. The predilection for the site of fracture at the neck of femur falls into two major subgroups. Pertrochanteric fractures occur when the injury is extracapsular and the blood supply to the head of femur is unaffected. The management of this group involves internal fixation through a sliding hip screw device or intramedullary fixation device, both of which have good results. The other group of patients who sustain an intracapsular fracture at the femoral neck are at increased risk of nonunion and osteonecrosis. Recent papers in the literature have shown better functional outcomes with a primary hip replacement over other treatment modalities. This article reviews the current literature and indications for a primary total hip replacement in these patients.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".