MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2150580396 · doi:10.3138/physio/60/1/10

Predictors of Gait Speed in Patients after Hip Fracture

2008· article· en· W2150580396 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kathleen K Mangione, Rebecca L. Craik, Rosalie B Lopopolo, James D. Tomlinson, Susan K. Brenneman

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysiotherapy Canada · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHip and Femur Fractures
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFoundation for Physical Therapy
KeywordsGaitHip fracturePhysical medicine and rehabilitationPreferred walking speedMedicinePhysical therapyComputer scienceOsteoporosisInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Following hip fracture, patients demonstrate greatly reduced walking speeds 1 year later compared with age-matched elders. The purpose of our study was to examine the factors that relate to gait speed in patients after hip fracture. METHODS: Forty-two men and women (mean age 79 +/- 7.5 years) who sustained a hip fracture participated in this study. Linear regression analysis was used to determine a statistical model that best predicted gait speed, the dependent variable. Gait speed was measured with a computerized gait mat. The independent variables were age, sex, height, weight, time post-fracture, medications, mental status, depression, balance confidence, Medical Outcome Studies, Short Form (SF-36), balance, and lower extremity isometric force. All subjects were discharged from physical therapy services, and measurements were taken, on average, 17 weeks post-fracture. RESULTS: Using stepwise regression, 72% of the variance in gait speed was explained by summed lower extremity strength normalized by body weight, general health (SF-36), and balance confidence (Activities-specific Balance Confidence Scale). CONCLUSIONS: Impairments (summed lower extremity strength) and risk factors (perception of general health and balance confidence) are important predictors of gait speed in elders 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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.194
Threshold uncertainty score0.934

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.220 · 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.

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

Citations53
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysiotherapy CanadaSame topicHip and Femur FracturesFrench-language works237,207