MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2122164535

Accident or osteoporosis?: Survey of community follow-up after low-trauma fracture.

2011· article· en· W2122164535 on OpenAlexaff
Sonia Singh, Ramona Foster, Karim M. Khan

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and osteoporosis research
Canadian institutionsFraser Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOsteoporosisHip fractureTelephone interviewBone mineralVitamin D and neurologyPhysical therapyEmergency departmentMedical prescriptionPediatricsEmergency medicineInternal medicinePsychiatryNursing
DOInot available

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To describe the postfracture osteoporosis management of at-risk patients presenting with low-trauma fracture in a suburban community hospital setting. DESIGN: Telephone survey. SETTING: Hospital emergency department serving a retirement community in White Rock and South Surrey, BC. PARTICIPANTS: Men and women older than 40 years of age who presented with low-trauma fracture between October 1, 2004, and April 30, 2005. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The prevalence of bone mineral density testing, osteoporosis medication prescriptions, referrals to fall prevention programs, and calcium and vitamin D supplementation within 6 months of the index fracture, as well as patient perceptions of future risk of fracture and sources of osteoporosis information. RESULTS: A total of 181 people met the eligibility criteria and 161 were contacted; 84 (52%) people responded, of whom 53 were interviewed. At the time of their index fractures, 79% (42 of 53) of patients surveyed were not taking osteoporosis medication. After the index fracture, 30% (16 of 53) received new bone mineral density testing, and 8% (4 of 53) were starting courses of new osteoporosis medication. Sixty-eight percent (36 of 53) of all patients were taking calcium supplements and 50% (26 of 53) were taking vitamin D supplements. Eight percent (4 of 53) of patients were referred to a fall prevention program and 9% (5 of 53) were prescribed hip protectors; 19% (10 of 53) of patients thought they were at risk of having another fracture. CONCLUSION: Osteoporosis management of patients after low-trauma fracture in this community was suboptimal; the role of the media, family and friends, and allied health professionals to prevent fractures in at-risk individuals needs to be further explored.

Stored with the screening record, where it is evidence for the labels above.

How this classification was reachedexpand

The three-model screen

all 5,600 screened works →

All three models called this out of scope.

stratum: aff_core · design weight: 5595.24 (the sample is stratified; any rate computed without the weight is wrong)
Claude Opus 4.8OUT
genre: empirical
about Canada: no
confidence: high

Survey of post-fracture osteoporosis management; the object is clinical care quality, not research practice.

GPT-5.6 (high)OUT
genre: empirical
about Canada: no
confidence: high

The study evaluates osteoporosis follow-up in patients, not research practice.

Grok 4.5OUT
genre: empirical
about Canada: no
confidence: high

Clinical survey of post-fracture osteoporosis care; object is patient management, not research practice.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.088
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.122
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Citations10
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicBone health and osteoporosis researchFrench-language works237,207