HipWatch: Osteoporosis Investigation and Treatment After a Hip Fracture: A 6-Month Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to determine whether a novel Patient Empowerment and Physician Alerting (PEPA) intervention would improve the proportion of seniors who were investigated and treated for osteoporosis after hip fracture. METHODS: We undertook a 6-month randomized controlled trial (RCT) in 48 women and men >/= 60 years old who had suffered a hip fracture and were admitted to a tertiary-care university hospital. The primary outcome measure was the proportion of participants offered one or more osteoporosis-specific 'best practices' measured using the Diagnosis and Management Questionnaire (DMQ). Participant responses were validated in part by physician report. RESULTS: In the PEPA intervention group, 19 (68%) were offered one or more components of best practice care compared with 7 (35%) in the 'usual care' group (p <.05). In the PEPA group, 15 (54%) (p <.01) were prescribed bisphosphonate therapy, 8 (29%) (p <.01) had a bone mineral density scan, 11 (39%) were prescribed calcium and vitamin D (p =.32), and 9 (32%) (p <.01) were prescribed exercise. In the usual care group, 0 (0%) were prescribed bisphosphonate therapy, a bone mineral density assessment, or exercise and 6 (30%) were prescribed calcium and vitamin D. CONCLUSIONS: This simple, inexpensive PEPA intervention resulted in far superior clinical management than did usual care in a population at high risk of future 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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".