Development of a Risk Assessment Tool to Predict Fall-Related Severe Injuries Occurring in a Hospital
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Inpatient falls are the most common adverse events that occur in a hospital, and about 3 to 10% of falls result in serious injuries such as bone fractures and intracranial haemorrhages. We previously reported that bone fractures and intracranial haemorrhages were two major fall-related injuries and that risk assessment score for osteoporotic bone fracture was significantly associated not only with bone fractures after falls but also with intracranial haemorrhage after falls. Based on the results, we tried to establish a risk assessment tool for predicting fall-related severe injuries in a hospital. Possible risk factors related to fall-related serious injuries were extracted from data on inpatients that were admitted to a tertiary-care university hospital by using multivariate Cox' s regression analysis and multiple logistic regression analysis. We found that fall risk score and fracture risk score were the two significant factors, and we constructed models to predict fall-related severe injuries incorporating these factors. When the prediction model was applied to another independent dataset, the constructed model could detect patients with fall-related severe injuries efficiently. The new assessment system could identify patients prone to severe injuries after falls in a reproducible fashion.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".