MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Effect of Rehabilitation on Hip and Knee Proprioception in Older Adults After Hip Fracture

2004· article· en· W2083740088 on OpenAlexaff
Marissa Mendelsohn, Tom J. Overend, Robert J. Petrella

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHip and Femur Fractures
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProprioceptionRehabilitationHip fracturePhysical therapyKnee JointPhysical medicine and rehabilitationRehabilitation hospitalSurgeryOsteoporosisInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Impaired proprioception may predispose patients with hip fracture to increased risk of future disability. The purpose of the study was to determine the effect of rehabilitation on proprioceptive changes in both the hip and knee joints of patients after hip fracture. DESIGN: Data were collected on 30 patients with hip fracture (mean age, 79.6 +/- 6.7 yrs) who attended physical and occupational therapy sessions five times per week during a rehabilitation hospital stay of 24.8 +/- 8.1 days. Proprioception was assessed with an electrogoniometer within 48 hrs of admission to and discharge from the rehabilitation unit. The passive-to-active reproduction of joint angle technique determined absolute angular error in non-weight-bearing positions at 15, 30, and 60 degrees of hip flexion and knee extension in both injured and noninjured sides. RESULTS: Absolute angular error decreased significantly (P < 0.05) from admission (5.3 +/- 2.6 degrees, 4.1+/- 3.1 degrees) to discharge (3.0 +/- 2.3 degrees, 2.8 +/- 3.1 degrees) in hip flexion and knee extension, respectively, on the injured side. Absolute angular error was significantly less (P < 0.05) at 15 degrees compared with 30 and 60 degrees of hip flexion at admission and discharge on the injured side. CONCLUSIONS: Hip and knee joint proprioception significantly improved in the injured side after the rehabilitation program. This may be an important outcome regarding future disability in this population.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.851
Threshold uncertainty score0.559

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.002
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations21
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Physical Medicine & RehabilitationSame topicHip and Femur FracturesFrench-language works237,207