MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2098451711 · doi:10.5014/ajot.61.3.335

Recovery After Hip Fracture: What Can We Learn From the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure?

2007· article· en· W2098451711 on OpenAlexaffabout
Mary Edwards, Sue Baptiste, Paul W. Stratford, Mary Law

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Occupational Therapy · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHip and Femur Fractures
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWOMACHip fractureMedicinePhysical therapyOccupational therapyActivities of daily livingIntervention (counseling)OsteoarthritisPopulationPhysical medicine and rehabilitationOsteoporosisAlternative medicineNursingInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study sought to determine the extent to which the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) assessed performance in elderly people after hip fracture. Correlations were found between the COPM and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC). Although functional improvement was noted, participants did not attain the functional status they had before hip fracture. The greatest recovery occurred within the first 130 days after surgery. These findings suggest some central implications for occupational therapy practice, although further research is required to determine the optimal time for intervention to begin. Because the COPM is sensitive to change in function in patients recovering from hip fracture, COPM use with this population is desirable and advisable.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.057
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.111
Threshold uncertainty score0.224

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.057
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.276 · 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

Citations28
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Occupational TherapySame topicHip and Femur FracturesFrench-language works237,207