Factors associated with a second hip fracture: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To provide a systematic review of factors associated with subsequent hip fracture among individuals who have fractured a hip. DATA SOURCES: We searched Ageline, CINAHL, EMBASE and MEDLINE, from database inceptions to the week of 5 June 2006. REVIEW METHODS: Studies were selected if they provided information regarding risk of subsequent hip fracture among individuals who had fractured a hip. Study quality was assessed using the Jadad criteria for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and a simple scale based on the MOOSE criteria for cohort studies. RESULTS: Four RCTs and seven cohort studies were identified. Older age, cognitive impairment and lower bone mass appear to increase the risk of subsequent fracture, as did impaired depth perception, impaired mobility, previous falls, dizziness and poor or fair self-perceived health. Pharmacologic treatment for osteoporosis decreased the risk of subsequent fracture. Use of hip protectors by community-dwelling seniors did not appear to protect against a second fracture. CONCLUSION: A number of easily observed risk factors may help identify those individuals at higher risk for subsequent fracture.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".