MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2145523557 · doi:10.1186/1471-2318-13-130

Improving care after hip fracture: the fracture? Think osteoporosis (FTOP) program

2013· article· en· W2145523557 on OpenAlexafffund
Naomi Dore, Courtney Kennedy, Pauline Fisher, Lisa Dolovich, Leonardo Farrauto, Αλεξάνδρα Παπαϊωάννου

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Geriatrics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and osteoporosis research
Canadian institutionsSt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonMcMaster UniversityHamilton Health SciencesSt. Peter's Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineHip fractureOsteoporosisRehabilitationPhysical therapyFracture (geology)Physical medicine and rehabilitationInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Hip fractures are a common and serious consequence of osteoporosis, and hip fracture patients are at high risk for recurrence. Appropriate pharmacotherapy reduces this risk and is associated with reduced mortality after hip fracture, but a care gap exists for fracture prevention in these patients. This evaluation determined rates of osteoporosis treatment and bone mineral density (BMD) testing in hip fracture patients following discharge from a rehabilitation unit. METHODS: A prospective cohort study of hip fracture patients aged ≥ 50 on an inpatient rehabilitation unit in 2008 and 2011. Patients were seen by a nurse specialist, and encouraged to see their family physician for further assessment and treatment. Physicians were sent a letter indicating the need to follow up with their patient. Patients were contacted following discharge from hospital to determine treatment rates. RESULTS: Of 310 eligible hip fracture patients admitted to the rehabilitation unit in the years studied, 207 patients were reached post-discharge and provided data. Of patients who were not previously taking osteoporosis medication, 59% of patients from the 2008 cohort, and 42% of patients from the 2011 cohort had osteoporosis treatment initiated by six months following discharge. By 2 months following discharge, 46% of patients in the 2008 cohort had a new BMD performed or scheduled, while this was true for 14% of patients from the 2011 cohort. 35% of patients in 2011 had not seen their family physician by 2 months following discharge. CONCLUSIONS: Rates for osteoporosis treatment and BMD testing were higher than those reported in the literature for patients not enrolled in case manager programs. BMD testing declined from 2008 to 2011. Lower treatment rates may be due to concerns regarding reports of possible association between bisphosphonate use and atypical fractures. Improving rates of patient follow-up with family physicians will be important for increasing hip fracture treatment rates after discharge.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.491
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations17
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC GeriatricsSame topicBone health and osteoporosis researchFrench-language works237,207