MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2104290004 · doi:10.1136/ip.2010.029215.903

Incidence of hip fracture in Parkinson disease: a population-based study in British Columbia, Canada

2010· article· en· W2104290004 on OpenAlexaffabout
Don Voaklander, Wiselka Martin, Pam King-Jesso, Dejan Ozegovic, Amber Jones, Marguerite Wieler

Bibliographic record

VenueInjury Prevention · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and osteoporosis research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHip fractureMedicineIncidence (geometry)PopulationDemographyDiagnosis codePediatricsEpidemiologyPoison controlRate ratioInternal medicineOsteoporosisEmergency medicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aims Parkinson's disease (PD) constitutes a significant risk for falls and subsequent hip fracture, yet the rate of hip fracture in this patient population has not been clearly delineated. We looked at the incidence rate of hip fracture in a provincial-based population 65 years or older who had PD. Methods To identify PD cases record linkage of inpatient hospitalisation, physician billing and prescription records were examined for PD specific diagnostic codes for British Columbia, Canada. Hip fracture cases were identified using the International Classification of Diseases Version 9 codes. Data for the fiscal years 1991/92 to 2000/2001 were stratified by year, age group, sex. Incidence rates of hip fractures in PD were calculated using prevalent PD cases in year as the denominator. Results For females rates of hip fracture were the highest in first years of the study peaking at 31.0/1000 PD case in 1991/92 and dropping to 20.8/1000 in 1999/00. Female's rates were consistently about 1.7 times that of male rates. The male rate of hip fracture peaked in 1993/94 at 19.8/1000 PD cases dropping to 12.6/1000 in 1999/00. Rates increased with age in both sexes. Conclusions The PD population appears to be at greater risk (3 to 4 times) of hip fracture when compared to rates reported for the general Canadian population. The differential in rates appears to be most apparent in younger PD (<75 years) cases.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.341

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.312 · 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 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

Citations5
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInjury PreventionSame topicBone health and osteoporosis researchFrench-language works237,207