Risk Factors for Hip Fracture in Older Home Care Clients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Little information is available on hip fracture risks among community-dwelling persons receiving home care. Our aim was to identify risk factors for hip fracture from health information routinely collected for older home care clients. METHODS: This was a cohort study involving secondary analysis of data on 40,279 long-stay (>60 days) home care clients aged 65 and older in Ontario, Canada; occurrence of hip fracture as well as potential risk factor information were measured using the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI)/Minimum Data Set-Home Care assessment instrument. RESULTS: In all, 1,003 clients (2.5%) had hip fracture on follow-up assessment. Older (85+ vs 65-74, relative risk [95% confidence interval]: 0.52 [0.43-0.64]) clients are at increased risk; males are at reduced risk [0.60 (0.51-0.70)]. Other risk factors include osteoporosis (1.19 [1.03-1.36]), falls (1.31 [1.15-1.49]), unsteady gait (1.18 [1.03-1.36]), use of ambulation aide (1.39 [1.21-1.59]), tobacco use (1.42, [1.13-1.80]), severe malnutrition (2.61 [1.67-4.08]), and cognitive impairment (1.30 [1.12-1.51]). Arthritis (0.86 [0.76-0.98]) and morbid obesity (0.34 [0.16-0.72]) were associated with reduced risk. Males and females demonstrated different risk profiles. CONCLUSIONS: Important risk factors for hip fracture can be identified from routinely collected data; these could be used to identify at-risk clients for further investigation and prevention strategies.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".