Does Functional Recovery in Elderly Hip Fracture Patients Differ Between Patients Admitted From Long-Term Care and the Community?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It is largely unknown whether functional recovery following hip fracture differs between long-term care (LTC) and community-dwelling residents. Our primary purpose was to compare recovery between these patients 6 months following hip fracture, controlling for known prognostic factors. Secondarily, we examined the contribution of residential status, in addition to patient characteristics, to functional recovery. METHODS: We studied a population-based inception cohort of 451 hip fracture patients >/= 65 years old admitted to one Canadian health region hospital between July 1999 and September 2000. Participants completed the Modified Barthel Functional Index (MBI) in hospital and again via telephone interviews 6 months postoperatively. Data were also collected on surgery and rehabilitation timing, length of hospital stay (LOS). and discharge destination. Relative change from prefracture function adjusting for known prognostic factors, and the proportion of participants returning to prefracture function were compared between the LTC and community-dwelling residents. RESULTS: LTC residents (n = 115) were older, with lower function prefracture, more comorbidities, and increased dementia than community-dwelling residents (n = 336). Six months postfracture, 17 (22%) LTC and 180 (71%) community-dwelling residents had regained prefracture function (p <.001). LTC residents had 33% lower (-40.6, -27.2) and community-dwelling residents 11.6% lower (-14.8, -8.4) 6-month MBI scores relative to prefracture scores after risk adjustment. Residential status was significantly associated with risk-adjusted functional recovery (p <.001). Median LOS was 4 days less for LTC than for community-dwelling residents (p <.001). Twelve (10%) LTC and 266 (79%) community-dwelling residents were discharged to inpatient rehabilitation (p <.001). CONCLUSION: Following hip fracture, most LTC residents do not regain prefracture function irrespective of known prognostic factors. Further investigation is needed as to the extent to which personal and environmental characteristics contribute to outcome after hip fracture.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".