MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2126652844 · doi:10.1359/jbmr.2003.18.7.1267

Strategies for Avoiding Hip Impact During Sideways Falls

2003· article· en· W2126652844 on OpenAlexafffund
Stephen N. Robinovitch, Lisa M. Inkster, Jessica Maurer, Brady Warnick

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Bone and Mineral Research · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersNational Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin DiseasesCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCenters for Disease Control and PreventionNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchMichael Smith Health Research BC
KeywordsHip fractureFalling (accident)Descent (aeronautics)PelvisMedicineOrthodonticsSittingPhysical medicine and rehabilitationSurgeryOsteoporosisPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

UNLABELLED: During a fall, hip fracture risk increases 30-fold if there is direct impact to the hip. We conducted sideways falling experiments and found that subjects were able to avoid hip impact by rotating forward or by rotating backward during descent. These simple safe-landing strategies should be considered in designing hip fracture prevention programs. INTRODUCTION: Ninety percent of hip fractures in the elderly are caused by falls. During a fall, hip fracture risk is increased 6-fold by falling sideways (instead of backward or forward) and 30-fold if direct impact occurs to the hip. Previous studies suggest that impact to the hip during a sideways fall can be avoided by rotating forward during descent to land on the outstretched hands. Presumably, an alternative strategy for avoiding hip impact is to rotate backward to land on the buttocks. We conducted sideways falling experiments to test the hypothesis that each of these falling strategies is equally effective in allowing one to avoid hip impact. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-two young adult women participated in trials where they were released from an inclined standing position into a sideways fall onto a foam mattress. Subjects were instructed to "land as softly as possible" and to "avoid impacting the hip" by either rotating forward or rotating backward during descent. RESULTS: We found that absolute values of the hip proximity angle, which described how close the impact site was to the lateral aspect of the pelvis, were not different in forward rotation and backward rotation trials (mean = 55.9 +/- 22.4 degrees versus 61.5 +/- 15.8 degrees, respectively). However, compared with forward rotation trials, backward rotation trials involved greater pelvis impact velocity (2.95 +/- 0.25 versus 2.45 +/- 0.77 m/s; p = 0.001) and greater whole-body kinetic energy at impact (238 +/- 70 versus 156 +/- 90 J; p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that, during a sideways fall, individuals can avoid impact to the hip and thereby lower the risk for hip fracture by rotating forward or by rotating backward during descent. These simple yet effective safe-landing strategies should be considered in designing exercise-based hip fracture prevention programs.

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 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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
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)0.0040.001

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 head0.125
GPT teacher head0.482
Teacher spread0.357 · 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

Citations98
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Bone and Mineral ResearchSame topicBalance, Gait, and Falls PreventionFrench-language works237,207