MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2099696072 · doi:10.5539/gjhs.v4n3p64

Use of Risk Assessment Tool for Inpatient Traumatic Intracranial Hemorrhage after Falls in Acute Care Hospital Setting

2012· article· en· W2099696072 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Shin‐ichi Toyabe

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Journal of Health Science · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEmergency and Acute Care Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersJapan Society for the Promotion of Science
KeywordsMedicineConcomitantEmergency medicineInjury Severity ScoreRisk assessmentHip fractureFRAXTraumatic brain injuryPoison controlInjury preventionRisk management toolsMultivariate analysisAcute carePhysical therapyInternal medicineHealth careOsteoporosisBone mineral

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Severe injuries such as intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) are the most serious problem after falls in hospital, but they have not been considered in risk assessment scores for falls. We tried to determine the risk factors for ICH after falls in 20,320 inpatients (696,364 patient-days) aged from 40 to 90 years who were admitted to a tertiary-care university hospital. Possible risk factors including STRATIFY risk score for falls and FRAX™ risk score for fractures were analyzed by univariate and multivariate analyses. Fallers accounted for 3.2% of the patients, and 5.0% of the fallers suffered major injuries, including peripheral bone fracture (59.6%) and ICH (23.4%). In addition to STRATIFY, FRAX™ was significantly associated not only with bone fractures but also ICH. Concomitant use of risk score for falls and risk score for fractures might be useful for the prediction of major injuries such as ICH after falls.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.334 · 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

Citations6
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Journal of Health ScienceSame topicEmergency and Acute Care StudiesFrench-language works237,207